Preliminary Observations About A Fred Thompson Presidential Race

by Paul Weyrich - June 6th, 2007 - Townhall.com

While I recall the Reagan Presidency with great fondness I never got hooked on the notion that we must have a Reagan clone to save the nation. Reagan was perhaps guided by the Good Lord because he certainly was the right man for that era. With William J. Casey as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Paul II as Pope and Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain, Reagan and his allies helped the Soviet Union to implode. It has been a mere thirty years since the evil empire began to unravel. Yet adults born in or after 1987 have no clue how dangerous the Soviet Union was not just to this country but to the entire world.

[snip]

Those who treat Reagan’s legacy as a myth, as if Nancy were writing the script, forget that he was a human being. For all the good he did for the country, he dropped the ball now and then. I know I must speak such things in a whisper, but it is certainly true that Thompson, like Reagan, didn’t always do what might have been done. Yes, in dealing with the Soviets he [Reagan] made few mistakes, in dealing with Tip O’Neill he made a number.

So what about Thompson? Is he the right man at the right moment?

I think this thoughtful article sums up quite interestingly the questions that are being asked about our current situation in America. The current Bush, Bill Clinton and the first Bush will all go down in history as the wrong man for their time. All have serious flaws of character that weakened their Presidencies and our nation.

The first Bush did not have the determination to even wait 24 hours and assure the Republican Guards were destroyed so that Saddam Hussein would not survive. I am not sure now if it would have changed the outcome of the war against Islamofascism, but there is certainly no doubt that it made America look weak (even as George showed that he was a weak man). It contributed to an expansion of the already eager Islamofascist determination to take us on.

Clinton simply did not understand the war at all. He gutted our military at a time when we should have been strengthening it. He was a master politician but an incompetent statesman. He never acknowledged that we were being attacked and a war existed. He belittled the risks and tried to extend civil rights to the Islamofascists and treat them as criminals. He also is only patriotic to a dream of a more socialist nation that does not exist. At least not yet. That is why so many patriots and lovers of free enterprise still despise him.

The current Bush is fighting the war well but is such an incompetent strategist and communicator that he has allowed his enemies to brand him a loser. He is unfortunately taking the image of our military down with him, even as he tries to defend what they are doing at his direction. He can't run again though, so the question is what does the Republican party do to fix the loser image that is so gutting the willingness of many Americans to see this war through to victory?

I think that is what a lot of Republicans liked in Reagan. Even though he was vilified with the same vicious attacks Bush is getting, the smears never stuck to him or the party. He had the ability to focus on the important and not try and fix every problem in sight that the MBA fascinated Bush just cannot emulate. Bush seems tone deaf and attacks his base more often than he attacks his opponents. Bush's participation with Hastert in running the most pork riddled administration in history will for decades tar our party. When Reagan left office the Republican Party was admired and respected. Today it is justifiably distrusted. Thanks "W". Well he can't take all the blame. Some belongs to Hastert . . . . and even to Newt.

So where are we today? Several battles are being fought for the heart of the Republican Party that will determine the future of our nation.

The issue of abortion is being debated in the party, and whether the absolutists on the issue will stay in the party if their view does not prevail will determine whether the party remains a power. Almost all Republicans agree that abortion after the first trimester is an obscenity and must be made illegal. However almost half of Republicans agree that abortions during most if not all of the first trimester are not a sin and should not be illegal. These people do not buy the newly derived revisionist Christian view that the fertilized egg has a soul. The view of moderates who are not a part of either major party . . control most election outcomes (at federal, most states, and a large part of local governments anyway) and they agree with the middle view on abortion. Some early abortions should be legal. The outcome of this battle for the soul of the Republican party may determine whether America wins the war against Islamofascism. The democrats are not fighting the Islamofascists at this point. They are in many ways aligned with them. If the Republican Party becomes a non factor at the federal level, as it was in the last election, the battle over the abortion issue will concede the court ordered premise that abortion is a right, and also indirectly lose the war against Islamofascism. Who wins in this battle? Certainly not the Republican Party or America.

The difference of opinion about whether there IS a war against Islamofascism or not may also be determinative of coming elections. Many Americans do not believe this war was started by the Islamofascists. They have accepted the liberal democrat line that they are responding to "our attack in Iraq". They say loudly and confidently that "there were no Islamofascists in Iraq before we invaded." The press cheers this view. Is it correct? To those of us who cannot understand this view it simply ignores any evidence that contradicts it. When you show all the evidence that Saddam Hussein saw how powerful the Islamofascists are and how hard he worked to make sure he was "not an enemy" of the movement, they belittle the evidence or ignore it. There are people like Walter Jones in the Republican Party here in Eastern North Carolina who have bought into this premise. Until nuclear bombs go off in Israel and in American cities, there will be no answer. What happens at that time is the real fear. How will America respond to nuclear bombs going off? When they go off will we unite as we did after 9/11? Or will we turn on each other to a start a blood bath of retribution against the appeasers? Unity means the Republican Party wins. A blood bath means we all lose.

Socialism is actually being advocated by a number or Republicans. Foremost among these is George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism is nothing but socialism light. Bush has pushed hard for a recognition that you cannot simultaneously pretend that we are all equal under the law and then reject the ability of religious groups to participate in the expenditure of federal money for certain social service functions. However this does not address a more important issue. If Republicans reject socialism and advocate free enterprise, how can we simultaneously defend the concept of any group, religious or otherwise, getting on the federal gravy train for social services? This dichotomy is tearing the party apart.

A long term problem with the Republican Party has been the schism over illegal immigration. There is of course a group in our party, mostly fat cat big corporation types, who support both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. They are COMMITTED to assuring that illegal immigration continues. They are the same group who support the socialist program of minimum wages, a related issue; related because both issues really are about cheap wages. Thomas Sowell, and most other responsible economists, have long explained the damage to small business (and all of society) of minimum wage laws. Both illegally using workers who are not residents or citizens of our nation, and illegally paying certain people off the books, are popular tactics of big corporations. It is only small business, where it is more obvious who is at fault, who are damaged by both issues and who cannot hide from government bureaucrats. The Republican party must decide. Are they defenders of free enterprise or defenders of socialism? This decision will either unify or destroy the Republican Party.

I am curious about the campaign to determine who wins the 2008 nomination because to a great extent it is being used to work out Republican positions on the issues listed above. This article by Weyrich asks many of the more interesting questions that must be decided. I wonder if the campaign for Presidential candidates will hide the more interesting philosophical debate about the soul of the party?