The Front Page/HOME Gun Pics/GGPs Lists The Weekend Women

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

Nice job! And wouldn’t the entrenced special interests howl like banshees?!

tenmikemike | 1/7/2008 08:23 AM CDT

Can’t believe that no one has yet commented on this post yet.  Kim, THANKS!  I’ve taken the liberty of commenting on Fred08 advising what ever peon assigned to read the emails have Fred read your post (included the link so as not to impose too much work), positing that his (Fred’s) stock would soar were he to dump the babble speak and use language such as your’s to communicate with the voters of America.  Maybe if enough of us do the same, said peon might just point Fred in your direction.

MDRepublican | 1/7/2008 08:25 AM CDT

Damn, that was GOOD! I was under the impression that that was where FRED! stood, but if you didn’t read that out of the debate, somehow he must not have said it or stood there. Kim, I really do wish you could have run. That was the most perfect platform I’ve ever heard.

cmblake6 | 1/7/2008 09:02 AM CDT

You know, I don’t hear much of what any of the politicians have to say.  I did hear a few minutes of the New Hampshire ‘debate’ and Fred looked good, but I must have missed what you’re referring to.  So I won’t dispute what you say about not supporting any of them, though I’m still doing so for Fred.

The thing is, where I trust Rudy McRomney to BREAK their promises to do the right thing, I almost want to come to Fred’s defense and say perhaps he’s obscuring what he intends to do (as I gathered from earlier reading) in order to get elected?

What I mean is, you talk to a Liberterian for more than 15 seconds and “legalize drugs” becomes the message.  They are so right on so many things, but they’ll never win anything because they can’t get something else out.

Constitution Party is the same way with religion.

Fred seems intelligent enough to expect us (US us, we here who want what’s right) to see that, and allow him some leeway to say what the sheep want to hear, perhaps?  Not lie, but perhaps play their word games ...

I don’t know.  Just what came to mind.  The alternative is too horrible to contemplate, that there is no choice we can live with.

Idahoser | 1/7/2008 09:02 AM CDT

That surely helps.  But how can I sell it to the dim wits that I work with? I was just told that all the trouble lies with George W. and when I responded that we have the worst do-nothing Congress that we have ever had, they all say, don’t listen to him, he’s a republican.  I give up.

Brutus | 1/7/2008 09:10 AM CDT

Kim ... absolutely brilliant and spot on.

Unfortunately, the blowhards running for office wouldn’t dare talk like that.  What.  Say out loud what many really think?  No way.
They’re mostly spineless bastards.  It’s a damn shame too that someone like yourself isn’t running for office somewhere. Our loss.

jdpeiper | 1/7/2008 09:16 AM CDT

I am continually amazed at those focus group things--people who are making up their mind which candidate to support based on these debates.

What in the hell?

When the focus group moderator asked the question, “How many people here had not made up their mind before coming here?” I would have said to those who raised their hands:

Then get the hell out and your ability to vote in this election has been suspended.  By next election, I except that you will have reviewed the voting records of the individuals running for office as well as any other background or reference material that would explain their positions.  Going by what they say in a forum like this, or how you feel about their apperance is NUTS.  Cliches such as “judging a book by its cover” come to mind.  This isn’t a vote for Home Coming Queen.  This is a vote for the President of the United States.  If you aren’t educated about what these men believe, their positions on the various issues BASED ON THEIR PREVIOUS VOTING RECORD, what they’ve done in the past, and use THAT to determine how effective they will be at representing our country, then you’re a fool and you spit on the vote that was obtained through the blood and sweat of thousands.

It’s mind boggling!

Connie du Toit | 1/7/2008 09:16 AM CDT

From reading I gather Barry Goldwater did exactly what you propose.  Why did he lose?

I really want to know, that was before my time and I haven’t studied that far back yet.

Idahoser | 1/7/2008 09:20 AM CDT

TechSpt.  What if someone is new and has no voting record?

For example ... what if Kim woke up one day and decided he’d had enuff of these deadheads and liars and ran for public office.

Based on things that Kim has written, I’d have no choice but to accept (or not) his word and vote accordingly.  But should I dismiss him because he has no voting record?

I think he is a brilliant man and honest as well.  Yeah, the only thing I have to go on is his writing but what else would I have to judge by?
So I’d have to use faith and believe him, and believe he could make a difference.

All moot anyway because we don’t have anyone I’m aware of with his apparent honesty and straight talking.

jdpeiper | 1/7/2008 09:39 AM CDT

I’d expect that you would spend time reading his writings, which would be the “record” equivalent… showing up to hear what he has to say is looking for a reason to discontinue support… such as him saying something contrary to his writings in the past.  If in a later appearance he stated something contrary to his earlier positions, then that type of forum is a good place to explain that, but if it is a 180, there better be a pretty good explanation.

Connie du Toit | 1/7/2008 09:56 AM CDT

The great crisis in our democracy is between those who want government to leave them alone and stick to what the Founding Fathers intended, as so well articulated by Kim, and those who want the government to take someone else’s money and use it for something for them. The 1964 election was a watershed in that regard, as Kim’s position never had a better spokesman than Goldwater, but the country went overwhelmingly for Johnson and his Great Society socialist experiments. The 1980 election was a watershed in the other direction, but Reagan’s hands were tied by massive entitlement programs and the votes they’ve bought, so the “rollback” really didn’t happen.

tsj55 | 1/7/2008 10:00 AM CDT

Contact your man. Tell him what you think.  Advise him that the message is being lost.  I’ll vote for whomever the Republican part puts forward, but damn, I want it to be Fred and that ain’t gonna happen unless he shakes up the population.  And, if it ain’t Fred, I’d like to know that the candidate has been spoken to/advised by readers of this and other truly conservative blogs.

MDRepublican | 1/7/2008 10:01 AM CDT

Minor quibble:  Substitute “jury box” for “mail box”.

It’s too damn bad you can’t run for President, Kim, because you’d certainly have my vote--as will whichever candidate’s positions are most in line with these ideals.

Guncrazy | 1/7/2008 10:12 AM CDT

I’ll vote for whomever the Republican part puts forward, but damn, I want it to be Fred and that ain’t gonna happen unless he shakes up the population.

MDRepublican,

PLEASE tell me that you’ll vote for the Republican candidate BECAUSE he is actually representing the goals and ideals YOU believe in. Because if you just vote for him BECAUSE he’s a GOP candidate, then you’re just as bad as a Democrat who blindly votes for a Democrat BECAUSE he (or SHE) is a Democratic Candidate.
I’m NOT saying this to insult you or ANYONE; I’m saying this to BEG you to LOOK at who you vote for, BEFORE you pull the lever, or check the box, or tap the screen or however YOUR district votes this time around. Do it in the Primary, do it in the General. Do it for EVERY Candidate, EVERY Question, EVERY Bond Issue. PLEASE! NEVER be afraid, in a General Election, to cross Party Lines if you don’t approve of who your Party nominated (DEMCONG, LISTEN UP!). On the other hand, if you DO approve of your Party Candidate, VOTE FOR HIM! Support your Party Fully!
BUT DO IT INTELLIGENTLY! DO IT WITH YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN. Know the issues, know the candidates, know what is REALLY at stake. Then get out and VOTE.

The Mad Yank | 1/7/2008 10:34 AM CDT

As all warm and tingly your speech would make me, I think point 4 would be a kiss of death.  Too many snouts at the trough who would take exception.  It’d have to be done in smaller steps.

pdwalker | 1/7/2008 10:55 AM CDT

Disagree.  Given the platform of the D’s at this point, which should be “S” for Socialist, any R is better.

Pull the R in November, regardless of who it is.  It is during the primaries that you are picky and vote your issues.

There has not been a Democrat for 100 years (or more) that hasn’t been a disaster.  That’s enough research into the issues to base a trend and an appropriate response.

Connie du Toit | 1/7/2008 11:00 AM CDT

Disagree.  Given the platform of the D’s at this point, which should be “S” for Socialist, any R is better.
Pull the R in November, regardless of who it is.  It is during the primaries that you are picky and vote your issues.
There has not been a Democrat for 100 years (or more) that hasn’t been a disaster.  That’s enough research into the issues to base a trend and an appropriate response.
Tech Spt/Imaginary Wife on 01/07 at 10:00 AM | #109210

TS, relax, I promise to be brief, concise and courteous.

Something that we didn’t discuss in the last battle on this war:

The quality of candidates we have to choose from has been disappointing even for you, if I understand right.

I propose that the “any R in November” attitude is perhaps part of the cause of our poor selection.  Now I’ll admit that come November I will probably do the same, but to give losers that hope in January, that no matter how badly they suck that they’ll have our support, and further to give your fellow disappointed voters the assurance that no matter how badly the alternatives suck that we will support them, may give people more excuse to ‘safe’ choices and give us Rudy or Mitt rather than Fred or Ron.

Seriously, respectfully, I don’t want a fence-sitter who knows little and thinks McCain is conservative, to hear from me that I will support his choice no matter what.  I want him afraid that he’d better look harder at his choices.

And in the end maybe the choices will get better.

I think only we, taking that ‘any R’ approach, are responsible for the lack of good politicians.

Idahoser | 1/7/2008 11:59 AM CDT

What TS was inferring, I think, is no matter how RINO, it’s still better than a demoncrap. We know ALL of them are very bad, while the R is not AS bad, anyway. But we need to elect an R, not an r*.

cmblake6 | 1/7/2008 12:05 PM CDT

In support of the idea that one should review a candidates actions thoroughly rather than only relying on what he says, here is a link to an exhaustive website that provides info like voting records and speeches made by every federal and state elected official and candidate.

http://www.vote-smart.org/

CPT Holzbach | 1/7/2008 12:10 PM CDT

You are 100% right, Kim.  But our Republic has slipped so far down the slippery slope towards Statism and “Mommy Democracy” that no Republican candidate would dare buck the establishment and espouse these rock-solid Republican---dare I say American---ideals.  We are doomed.  Keep stockpiling ammo.

Mustang | 1/7/2008 12:23 PM CDT

while americans like kim think and write thus...I will want to visit and want eventualy to stay.

thud | 1/7/2008 12:32 PM CDT

“Minor quibble:  Substitute ‘jury box’ for ‘mail box’. ”

Absolutely not. We do not legislate through the courts: that’s what Democrats want to do.

The “box” process, and it IS a process, is: soap, mail, ballot, cartridge. (With an extraordinary amount of time and effort which must pass before we resort to the last.)

Kim du Toit | 1/7/2008 12:45 PM CDT

Isn’t jury box a reference to jury nullification (kind of the opposite of legislating through the courts)?

MiddleAgedKen | 1/7/2008 01:01 PM CDT

Mad Yank,

I know the candidates in both parties and know where they all stand.  I look at the Republican field and see only one candidate who is even remotely conservative.  I look at the Democrat side and see only Socialists. 

You say “PLEASE tell me that you’ll vote for the Republican candidate BECAUSE he is actually representing the goals and ideals YOU believe in.”

I would if there were one in the field.  Thompson is the best of a rather mediocre lot and not at all a “lock” to get the Rebublican nomination. 

I’ve watched and listened to people who vote the party line my entire life.  I would NEVER do that.  But, come on, is there ANYONE on the left that YOU’D support?  TS is right, I’ll be picky now, but come election time, I’ll pull the lever for the Republican candidate because if elected, there is least a chance that we can stave off the attempts at Socialism till the pendulum swings back to the right.

MDRepublican | 1/7/2008 02:29 PM CDT

One candidate stands head and shoulders above the others on the War on Terror, and that’s McCain. Guiliani makes the right noises, but the largest enforcement operation he’s ever authorized is a police raid on a drug house. McCain had it right on Rumsfeld and the surge, and has the bonus credential of having personally dropped a lot of ordnance on our enemies.

tsj55 | 1/7/2008 03:51 PM CDT

I know how you feel about him, Kim, but I will respectfully submit that the reason you didn’t hear those points made in the “debate” is because Dr. Ron Paul was excluded. No, I don’t want him to be president either, but I do want him pushing the debate (and hopefully a brokered convention) in the RIGHT direction—on domestic policy at least.

And TS, if the R party nominates Guiliani, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, I will be at the range instead of voting—with NO apologies. Better to keep training than waste my time voting for a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The party loyalty you show is precisely the reason the Stupid Party can nominate jerks like that and still count on a reasonable percentage of conservative voters. I’ve read the arguments on this point repeatedly from several commenters on the site, and I’m unconvinced that any of the above candidates would be less of a disaster in practice than any of the Democrats. Maybe I just think we’re further down the road to hell than y’all do.

Christopher | 1/7/2008 04:04 PM CDT

yes but McCain is about as bit of a nut on the right as Dean is on the left.  He is just quiet about it.

And to the voting in November.  I will vote for the Republican candidate regardless of how he is (in the presidential election).  I have seen all that is in the Democratic field and I shudder violently.  With the exception of Ron Paul, my shudder fact is much less with ANY of the Republicans.  So maybe in truth I won’t be voting for the Republican candidate, but AGAINST accelerated socialist tyranny.

And as far as the speech goes. 

Kim, I am thinking of running for local / state government as a primer for working my way up to the big game (US House or Senate).  When I get there, can I hire you as an advisor, campaign manager and speech writer?

We may not win, but we will have great sound bites on TV.

Precision | 1/7/2008 04:07 PM CDT

Nice speech, but it was based on a false premise. Even among Republicans, only a tiny minority of citizens and elected officials believe in Federalism and ‘original intent.’ Most Republican voters want federally funded goodies such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, educational loans and grants, small business loans, housing loans, interstate highways, etc. A candidate who gives your speech would be labeled an extremist or a wacko (think Ross Perot) not only by the press, but by most Republicans.

You repeatedly label libertarians as either anarchic flakes or non-pragmatic ideologues. You should give the same labels to federalists and constitutionalists, because, unfortunately, those viewpoints are nearly dead (critical condition in the ICU) and will not be revived in our lifetimes.

Dr. T | 1/7/2008 05:51 PM CDT

You are 100% right, Kim.  But our Republic has slipped so far down the slippery slope towards Statism and “Mommy Democracy” that no Republican candidate would dare buck the establishment and espouse these rock-solid Republican---dare I say American---ideals.

Not true.  Some of his ideas are complete whack job, but the things Kim supports are central to Ron Paul’s platform.  Of course, there are the other things that Dr. Paul stands for that Kim disagrees with, but he is THE smaller government, lower taxes, strict constitutionalist candidate.

Rannous | 1/7/2008 06:12 PM CDT

But, Dr. T, we MUST try to push it to the right. You may be right that WE will not see it in OUR lifetimes. But that doesn’t mean we can’t at least try to leave it to our children, or their children. As long as we are not dead, hope lives. Remember: soap, mail, ballot, cartridge. This country was for damn sure not up and running smoothly when it was founded. But, in time, in time. We are still the greatest nation on earth, I’d really like to keep it that way.

cmblake6 | 1/7/2008 06:16 PM CDT

Rannous, check FRED!s platform.

cmblake6 | 1/7/2008 06:18 PM CDT

I recall the “box process” as being “soap, ballot, jury and cartridge.”

On the soap box, you state your position and your arguments for it, whether in a public forum or personal conversation (or correspondence, in which case, it is inclusive of the mail box.)

The jury box, as it was explained to me, is a peaceable way to defy the edicts of an over-reaching legislature.  For instance, were I ever to sit on a jury hearing the case of a man on trial for a “hate crime,” I would vote “not guilty” on that charge, even if he is plainly guilty according to the legal statutes.  It is the last resort, short of the cartridge box, for the people to express that, in the matter before the court, the governed have withdrawn their consent.

I do not believe that this would be “legislating through the courts.” The jury has no power to make laws, but it does have the little-known power to nullify them.  This is entirely Constitutional, and ought to be practiced more often.  This is a very different thing from judicial legislation, in which a judge exercises an authority he does not possess, but too few are willing or knowledgeable enough to oppose.

Guncrazy | 1/7/2008 06:29 PM CDT

“I know how you feel about him, Kim, but I will respectfully submit that the reason you didn’t hear those points made in the “debate” is because Dr. Ron Paul was excluded.”

The problem with Ron Paul is that he may have said all those words before; but when he says them, he comes across sounding like a moonbat—a classic example of a decent message being ruined by the wrong messenger—and because he can’t stop yammering, and a proposal to roll back government ends up being hijacked by the inclusion of drug legalization, which automatically dooms the speaker to irrelevance.

And because Paul sounds so nutty, he actually makes it necessary for the other candidates to distance themseves from him, just so they can avoid being tarred by his brush.

Gah. It’s almost hopeless.

The only good news is that the Democrats may end up with a McGovernesque peacenik with an adolescent agenda. Even McCain sounds like a decent choice against THAT.

Kim du Toit | 1/7/2008 06:50 PM CDT

Kim
Go back to your question last week.  This is at the top or close to it.  Now if we could get a candidate to accept the speech as written and believe, then give it.

Right on!  Your column is what i miss most when I travel over there.  Just takes a while to get through the back days.

Traveler

fullerm | 1/7/2008 07:05 PM CDT

I love this post.

Lantana | 1/7/2008 07:43 PM CDT

MDRepublican;

Don’t get me wrong; I am 100% (w-e-l-l, 99.5%; I can’t 100% support ANY politician) in Fred Thompson’s camp. I just wanted to make sure You were thinking, instead of blindly pulling the R levers! That thought scared the Hell outta me, to be honest!
See, MY biggest problem is that there are too many conservatives that are RADICAL conservatives. A GRADUAL, THOUGHTFUL approach to change, in the manner of GROWTH (NOT “change for change’s sake”, as some DemCong LibTards we could name here, but won’t!), is good. Unfortunately, SOME CONSERVATIVES are against ALL change; they make KIM and TS/IW look like LIBERALS by comparison (don’t take that as an insult, Kim and Connie, because it ISN’T!! Honest. Kim- put the gun DOWN, PLEASE!). Ultra-Right-Wing-Radical-Conservatives who want to cast the Constitution in solid CONCRETE, never letting it change or grow for ANY REASON, even a GOOD, VALID reason. Hell, they wouldn’t even have passed the Bill of Rights, because it wasn’t in the Constitution! And there ARE people like that in Congress, running loose in America, and I think I’ve even read one or two here on Kim’s blog! Not on EVERY matter, and not always the same people on different matters. But they ARE here. At least, the one’s here aren’t consistently fanatics. But other places, there ARE fanatics - and they are every bit as terrifying as the ones in the Middle East - for the Same Reasons. Because if you think about it, that’s what a lot of Islamic Fundamentalists ARE - Ultra-Right-Wing, Religious-Conservatives. Stop and think about it from a objective viewpoint for a minute and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Someone who is willing to use ANY MEANS AVAILABLE to forward his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, EVEN A HOLY WAR. A JIHAD. A CRUSADE.
And THAT’S why I claim myself a Fusionist, not a Conservative. I lean toward the right politically, but I see a lot of value in willingness to change when something BETTER comes along - I CONSERVE what is BETTER or BEST, not necessarily what is COMFORTABLE (although I DO like my comforts!).

Think about it.

The Mad Yank | 1/7/2008 08:42 PM CDT

I might remind us all of the wise words of the Sage of Butler:

If you have the franchise, VOTE. You may not be able to find anything to vote FOR, but you can surely find something to vote AGAINST.

M

MarkAlger | 1/7/2008 08:51 PM CDT

And THAT’S why I claim myself a Fusionist, not a Conservative. I lean toward the right politically, but I see a lot of value in willingness to change when something BETTER comes along - I CONSERVE what is BETTER or BEST, not necessarily what is COMFORTABLE (although I DO like my comforts!).

No argument, but there is a process for changing the Constitution--it’s just not the process we actually use nowadays.

Sixty-seven senators.
Two hundred ninety representatives.
Thirty-eight state legislatures.

That’s how to change the Constitution.

MiddleAgedKen | 1/7/2008 09:04 PM CDT

BTW, I call myself a fusionist too (of the conservative/libertarian variety).

MiddleAgedKen | 1/7/2008 09:05 PM CDT

Just when I think the average American has gotten as stupid as he/she can get, they surprise me again.

I must be a friggin’ genius.......... rolleyes

The Termite | 1/7/2008 10:04 PM CDT

1) Kim, that was one great speech.  It would’ve been made better by the addition of a “hell” or “damn,” but I cuss to much anyway.

2) Imaginary Wife, your first comment was SPOT. ON.

3) Kim, I’d like your response re: jury nullification being the same as or different from the courts changing the law, rather than the legislators.

workinwifdakids | 1/7/2008 10:31 PM CDT

That’s an easy one.

Jury nullification affects ONE case, and the law is not changed a whit. It would be almost—no, let me rephrase that: it would be completely impossible to change a law by a process of continuous jury nullification, with a series of different juries.

A judge who creates legal precedent with one strange ruling affects all subsequent cases.

Kim du Toit | 1/7/2008 10:59 PM CDT

I managed to miss out on this one (the perils of school and work being at strange hours, but from what I gather, Fred did reasonably well--when he made himself heard, that is.
I keep hoping he’ll win the nomination. I plan to vote for him in California’s primary (for whatever good it will do, but hope springs eternal).
It’s when you post things like “I wouldn’t vote for any of these mealy-mouthed fools” that I begin to wonder, having missed the broadcast, how much I was really missing as far as content.
Like I said, hope springs eternal for the Republican party, for Fred, and for all of these United States.

M1Bobcat | 1/8/2008 02:40 AM CDT

Oh, and because I forgot to add this before:

I’d vote for that platform of yours, Kim.
Of course, being that this is not a perfect world, I’ll have to settle for the next-best thing. In my opinion, that’d be Fred Thompson.

M1Bobcat | 1/8/2008 02:43 AM CDT

Kim, that was excellent and entertaining, I’ll be using that and linking to you if you dont mind.

TimC | 1/8/2008 05:10 AM CDT

MiddleAgeKen;

Concur - on BOTH sentiments!
And I’m glad to see someone else READS the Sage!

The Mad Yank | 1/8/2008 06:28 AM CDT

Ooops, sorry Ken; that was MarkAlger, one up from you.
Mark, glad to see you read the Sage of Butler, MO.
One of the Geniuses of American prose - even if he DID make his name in Science Fiction!
Patriot, Veteran, and a Stand-Up Guy.
Robert Anson Heinlein 1907-1988.
R.I.P.

The Mad Yank | 1/8/2008 06:32 AM CDT

Idahoser;

Goldwater was defeated by a last-minute commercial.  I have forgotten the script of said commercial, but there was a shot of Mr Goldwater followed immediately by shot of a hydrogen bomb detonation.  Quite impressive to me as a nascent conservative at age 17.  I believe the senator said that if elected, he would use nuclear weapons to help end the war in Viet Nam.  More vintage readers of this blog correct me if that memory is faulty, but I’m pretty sure of it.

IrishEyes | 1/8/2008 07:17 AM CDT

Goldwater didn’t say he’d use nukes to end the Vietnam War. In 1964, Vietnam was just a brush war with some American advisors. He did say “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”. Johnson and his cabal devised an ad showing a little girl and a flower dissolving into a mushroom cloud to infer that Goldwater would be too quick on the trigger. It was wildly effective, although Goldwater would likely have lost anyway.
Goldwater was a man of great character and courage who would have made an outstanding president. Johnson was a corrupt dishonorable scumbag in both his personal and political life. The 1964 election is a testiment to how little the electorate actually knows about the candidates and how wrong headed it can be.

tsj55 | 1/8/2008 07:58 AM CDT

Mad Yank,

I do understand your position. Wasn’t aware that my posting made it sound like I was blindly following along without thought to the consequences. 

I learned a long time ago that following along blindly almost never produced results that pleased the blind follower.  My father, when he talks politics, espouses conservative ideals/positions/etc. However, when he votes he pulls the master D lever EVERY TIME! And then he spends the time between elections bitching about the politicians he helped elect. 

I’ve tried talking to him about this, not to try and change his mind (no point in that, trust me) but to gain some understanding of why. “Damned Republicans got it out for the little guy” is the most oft quoted reason.  Not sure why he doesn’t understand that when you elect a person who promises to raise taxes same said little guy is gonna wind up with less in his pocket. 

Kinda like a bumper sticker I saw on a car the other week when I was dropping the kids off at school:  “Working people who vote Republican is like Chickens voting for Colonel Sanders” ?? 

Not sure what its gonna take to shine the light on what, to me, is a rather blatant truth:  Democrats in power are convinced that they know how to live your life better than you do.  How many times do their followers have to be screwed before they figure it out?  And my God, what is it about being screwed that they don’t get?

MDRepublican | 1/8/2008 08:00 AM CDT

Kim,
I liked your essay and I agree with most of it.  I do have two points of constructive criticism that I hope you will consider.

1. You wrote; “...pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them for the murderers and tyrants that they are...”
-- I recommend that you change ‘kill them’ to ‘bring them to justice’.  I realize this is using politically correct terms, but the strength of the words ‘to justice’ versus the emotionally charged words of ‘kill them’ is a worthwhile change.  Given the positive connotation of one term and the negative of the other, I think it would keep your speech more positively focused.

2. In your section on Health Care, you use the failures (my interpretation) of other nations to predict the outcome of our nation.  Later, in the section on the Military, you illustrate that the US is not like other nations.  I agree that the US is unique and I know that other nations should not fear military as we are not a dictator / aggressive military nation.  That isn’t my point.  It also isn’t my point to support socialized medicine.  I agree it would fail here too.  My point is that I think you create a weakness in your arguments by predicting a result based upon the actions of other nations, but then later you speak to the uniqueness of the US in another area.  If I were debating you and forced to take the other side, I would highlight this discrepancy.  I don’t know how you can use the failures of other nations as examples for the US, but I do think they are failures.

I think your other arguments stand up well to debate.

Thanks

_Jon | 1/8/2008 08:13 AM CDT

One candidate stands head and shoulders above the others on the War on Terror, and that’s McCain. Guiliani makes the right noises, but the largest enforcement operation he’s ever authorized is a police raid on a drug house. McCain had it right on Rumsfeld and the surge, and has the bonus credential of having personally dropped a lot of ordnance on our enemies.
tsj55 on 01/07 at 02:51 PM | #109238

This makes no sense to me.  McCain is Giuliani without the lifestyle.  He wants your guns as bad as Hillary does.

Idahoser | 1/8/2008 08:36 AM CDT

What an article! Spot on as usual.

Quentin | 1/8/2008 09:36 AM CDT

Kim you are my write in vote come November.

Armed to the Teeth | 1/8/2008 10:00 AM CDT

Kim you are my write in vote come November.

Armed to the Teeth | 1/8/2008 10:00 AM CDT

Idahoser: A cursory check on McCain’s voting record will demonstrate how wrong it is to equate McCain with Hillary on guns. He voted against background checks at gun shows and assault rifle restrictions, for example. Do you think Hillary would have voted no?

tsj55 | 1/8/2008 10:52 AM CDT

Too much anti ‘socialist’ rhetoric on health care from that piece. The fact of the matter is that completely socialized medical systems in certain countries (most glaringly Sweden) are OUTPERFORMING us by spending less of their overall GDP per capita under a scary ‘socialist’ system than we do under a more ‘privatized’ one. The healthcare system has yet to fail in countries like Finland as well, right alongside their higher educational standards for children and 100% literacy rate.

Venkman | 1/8/2008 12:37 PM CDT

Venkman,
Last time I looked, Finland has a 54% top tax rate, coupled with the lowest welfare percentage in Europe. And if Scandinavian countries’ medical systems are so wonderful, how come the world’s really chronic cases always, somehow, find their way to the U.S.?

Forget it. We have the best health care system in the world, bar none. It’s not always affordable for everyone, and requires serious insurance coverage—but making healthcare available for everyone simply results in less excellence.

Socialism eliminates inequality of happiness by making everyone miserable. That goes for the quality of health care as well.

Kim du Toit | 1/8/2008 01:29 PM CDT

ArmedTTT,
If you weren’t so much bigger than me, and errrr armed, I’d kick you in the ass. A vote for me would be totally wasted, as I am ineligible to take the office. Hell, a vote for Ron Paul would be better than a vote for me.

Kim du Toit | 1/8/2008 01:31 PM CDT

You’re making a lot of blanket statements Kim about “the world’s most chronic cases coming to the U.S.” and applying it to the rest of the socialized medical system. The exceptions do not make the rule. If you want to stick with Finland, by all means lets do so. Anywhere from 75-80% of all medical expenses are publicly funded. Those high taxes they have also happen to have go towards public education, resulting in the the highest literacy rate in the world, and their youngsters are numero uno when it comes to education, and not to mention that it’s one of the most physically fit countries in the world. A high tax rate is not going to matter when Americans are going bankrupt being unable to pay for their medical expenses, rising tuition costs (for horrible public education, which is why you yourself home schooled your own children IIRC from your blog years ago), and paying for whatever congress feels like. By the time our kids are in high school (publicly that is) and having trouble doing rudimentary math or grammar, the Finns are kicking our butts with their “socialized” ickiness.

Throwing other countries into the mix on the health issue, the French smoke and drink as part of their daily lifestyle and they are outliving us, but do we really need to go into the details of the our own country’s health, education, government corruption, and shrinking middle class? Finland will clearly blow us out of the water in every category.

We might have the best doctors in the world for extremely serious cases, and that’s fine (since all that matters is paying the bills). However in the socialized medicine world (where it is actually working) the people are much healthier than we are and thus don’t have as many health-related issues as we do in regards to emrgencies. How is someone in today’s middle class in the U.S.A. supposed to be able to be physically fit when his wages mean nothing thanks to outrageous spending on our government, or getting screwed over with a sub-prime loan (where the lender is at fault, not where the customer lied about income), or when mom and dad cannot be able to stay at home and raise them properly? You have an article you posted where the typical middle-class family can’t afford to go to the movies and you think our system is the best?

I’m not a socialist Kim and I do believe such a system comes with great danger, but to say that it has never worked is hogwash.

Venkman | 1/8/2008 04:49 PM CDT

tsj55 wrote:

Goldwater was a man of great character and courage who would have made an outstanding president. Johnson was a corrupt dishonorable scumbag in both his personal and political life. The 1964 election is a testiment to how little the electorate actually knows about the candidates and how wrong headed it can be.

And that election is proof of why this election is so important.  We’re still trying to clean up the Great Society mess that is LBJ’s legacy, nearly a half-century later.  Heck, just read some of the subsequent comments in this thread...or consider what the Hildebeest will do to continue the LBJ legacy…

I’m not usually one for single cause --> effect analysis, but that one commercial arguably might have had more impact on world history than any other single media event in recent memory (including the Apple 1984 commercial).

“They told me if I voted for Goldwater, we’d get entangled in an Asian land war.  I did, and we did...” :-(

Grumpy Old Ham | 1/8/2008 08:54 PM CDT
Comments have been closed/expired.

Monday, January 07, 2008


Bottom of Comments | Back to Top

The Real Positions

Kim du Toit
January 7, 2008
8:00 AM CDT

I watched the so-called “Republican forum” last night on Fox, and let me tell you that and the end of it all, I wouldn’t vote for any of those mealy-mouthed fools. All of them spoke like they had won the nomination, and were appealing to the so-called “center”.

What bollocks.

In case any of the candidates’ campaign people ever bother to read this, allow me to give you a closing speech that will win you the Republican nomination, and probably the Presidency as well.

My fellow Americans:

I know that after the Iowa polls, everyone was talking about ‘change’ as though this was some kind of magic word which, at a single stroke, will cure us as a nation of all our ills.

Well, let me outline the specific areas where I would like to see this ‘change’ , and let me tell you how I’ll make those changes happen.

1. Low taxes. There seems to be a vague drifting of sentiment towards allowing a tax increase to happen. When I am elected President, I will push for lower, and still lower taxes for the hard-working Americans on whose backs this bloated government rests. I should point out that had any of the Founding Fathers foreseen a tax system which confiscates nearly one third of a man’s hard-earned wages, they might have given up at the start. So let me take that one step further: not only will I push for lower taxes, but I will veto each and every bill which comes my desk which contains even the slightest hint of a tax increase. That is my solemn promise to you.

2. Health care. Everyone, Republicans included, believes that we are entitled to health care in this country. What they really mean is that everyone should be able to afford health care insurance—and we should. Perhaps if the government took less money away from people in the first place, people would be able to pay for health insurance. We all know that a nationalized health care system is doomed to fail, because that’s happening in every country which has created it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called a National Health Service or a single-payer system, or universal health care; what it really is, is Government giving out medical treatment—and, in case anyone hasn’t been reading the news from overseas, when Government finds out that it can no longer afford to give out medical treatment to everyone who asks for it, Government then turns around and says, “You can have it, but you’ll have to wait in line” or even worse, “You can’t have it at all, because you belong to a group which we have decided is not worthy to get it.” This has happened, I repeat, in every country where socialized medicine is practiced, and it would be an act of supreme folly to imagine that it would turn out any differently in our country. And speaking of people unworthy to get free medical treatment, let me move to my next point.

3. Illegal immigration. I will work to reduce federal funding to any state which offers free health care, or free education, to illegal immigrants and their children. I am sick of people crying about the children of illegal immigrants. Let me make myself perfectly clear about this: if a couple gets arrested for robbing a convenience store to feed their family, we do not let them off a prison sentence because their children will lose their parents. It’s a crying shame that children should have to suffer as a result of their parents’ actions, but it is ultimately their parents who caused their woes, by breaking the law. One last thing: A lot of people have talked about how it would be impossible to deport twelve million illegal immigrants. That’s a red herring, because we don’t have to deport twelve million immigrants. What we can do is deport a million a year—and we can certainly do that— while at the same time shoring up our immigration- and border controls to ensure that having been deported, these criminals find it increasingly more difficult to re-cross the border and break the law again. Once illegal immigrants realize that we are serious about expelling them from this country, their desire to try will again be reduced. This has happened in the past, and I will work to make sure that it happens again.

4. The size of government. The federal government of this country has become too large, too powerful, and too big for its own britches. It has been able to get this way because it collects too much of our money in taxes, and because people have become accustomed to rely on the government to provide for their comfort. Well, as we look around the world today and over the past fifty or so years, the biggest lesson we can learn is that the bigger the government and the more intrusive it is on the business of its citizens, the less successful the country will be, and the more unhappy its citizens. I spoke earlier of my desire to lower our taxes; well, let me spell it out for you.  My goal will be to lower the top income tax rate to 20%—that’s right, twenty percent. There are people who will say that the government cannot survive by taking only one out of every five dollars we earn. Allow me to say two things about that. The first is that every single American knows how to balance what we want, with what we can afford. We would like to buy jewelery, but we know we can’t afford it. Do we therefore buy the diamond necklace anyway, and stop buying groceries for our children? No, we do not: we make do with less—but that’s not the way the federal government works. Perhaps it’s time for the Federal government to start making the same difficult choices that ordinary Americans are forced to make every day—in no small part because the government takes away too much of our money to begin with. The second thing I have to say is that if some government departments find themselves short of money and have to stop working because of no funding, that is one of my goals, too. Which leads me to my fifth point.

5. Constitutional principles. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were extremely careful to limit the power of the Federal government by saying that the government could only do a few specific activities, and no more. Somehow, those few specific activities have grown to encompass government programs that the Founders would never have imagined, in their wildest and most imprudent dreams. So I will work first to curb and then end those expensive and unsustainable programs, to the fullest power with which the Constitution grants the President. It has been said that one of the reasons that the Constitution was so well written was because the authors had the glowering presence of George Washington looking over their shoulders. Let me tell you, I feel that same presence today—and every President should feel that same presence, and govern accordingly.

6. National security. I spoke earlier of government departments running out of money to function, and of things the Federal government may or may not do. Let me remind everyone of one thing: one of the primary functions of the federal government, not only specified but directed by the Constitution, is to provide for the security of our nation. So do not think that I will allow our Armed Forces to be denied the proper funding to function. Far from it. Our opponents talk about our overwhelming military strength in the world as though it is a bad thing. When they say that, what they are saying is that we, the American people, cannot be trusted to manage that responsibility. Allow me to differ. When a tsunami strikes Southeast Asia, the most welcome sight is not a United Nations fact-finding mission, it is a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter. When one tribe is busy slaughtering another in some forgotten part of the world, the tribesmen would prefer to see American soldiers, rather than Bob Geldof. We are not a totalitarian country; we are not Hitler or Stalin, trying to conquer the world. We are Americans, trying to ensure that this fragile flame of freedom does not flicker and go out. And let me remind everyone that our enemies, especially the Islamic terrorists and the governments which support them, are blowing as hard as they can. My promise to you is that they will never succeed, even slightly, under my watch. We are going to listen to their phone calls and read their emails as they plan to blow up our cities or kill our soldiers; we are going to interrupt their flow of funding, no matter what the source may be. And we are going to pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them for the murderers and tyrants that they are, just as we have pursued and punished Nazi killers, and still do to this day.

In closing, let me say this to you all: our Founding Fathers were rightfully afraid of tyrannical governments, both those from outside our borders and those which may spring from our own population. This is why they limited the power of government, and provided for Americans to change matters when they wanted to, whether through the soap box, the mail box, the ballot box, and, in the final extreme and with extreme reluctance, the cartridge box, just as those few brave souls did at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts.

Well, I speak to you now as a candidate for change—the best change, the change which our Constitution demands, and a change back to our Constitution’s original intent: less government in your lives and affairs; lower taxes; the freedom to bear arms, and all the other freedoms as enumerated in our Bill of Rights, which is still the greatest social and political document ever written.

I will work tirelessly towards that end, because if I do not, I will have betrayed the trust which our Founding Fathers and you, the American people, will have bestowed upon me.

Thank you, and good night.




Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post | Back to Top


Total Entries: 6278
Total Comments: 66008
Most Recent Entry: 07/06/2008 07:06 am
Most Recent Comment on: 07/06/2008 02:05 pm
Total Members: 2429
Total Logged in members: 10
Total guests: 258
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/06/2008 02:48 pm
The most visitors ever was 889 on 01/10/2007 04:01 pm

Current Logged-in Members:  Jeff Wood  jetfxr69  LibraryGryffon  Navy guns  P229-357Sig  Patriot in Durban S.A  Rich  rs76239  Tasmanian Devil  vonKrag




StatCounter



Copyright 2002 - 2008 - theothersideofkim.com / Kim du Toit. All rights reserved.

E-mails and comments become the property of Kim du Toit
This site is private property. Limited access is granted by the site owner.
Intentionally circumventing software restrictions is trespassing.



Syndication:
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed