Fred Thompson-The Best, The Only: Part II

I was determined to get that first part "to press" yesterday morning in order to give myself a bit of a prod to keep on it, but it was meant to be introductory in nature anyhow. Still, haste makes waste-it's true-and in my rush I omitted a couple of things I consider worth clearing up before I proceed, but I don't want to go back and edit Part I and risk confusing anyone. In fairness to myself, I was talking with a friend while I was working on it, but my own haste is the culprit. So, before I get to the clarification/expansion part, I'll say that the original plan was for this to be a three-part series. I still hope to manage that, but we'll see; most of all, I don't wish to post a lengthy thesis all at once in this hurry-up world of today. On that note, to business...

That photo of Charlie Daniels and Fred Thompson...it was taken at the Freedom Concert in Atlanta this past Tuesday, and is featured on Fred's official not-quite-official campaign site, as is the above photo of Fred and Larry the Cable Guy from the same event.

And now to the literary meat of the introductory post (in bold), with amendments:

They're already going after Fred, in fact-desperately, relentlessly-throwing whatever mudpies their infantile strategists can dream up and hoping something, anything, sticks. Expect more of the same from here on to the primaries, but the point is that if they had anything truly substantive to dish out about Fred: 1) He wouldn't be in the mix at all; and 2) They would save it for the general.

Why do I say so? I'll refer back to this-which is updated often, incidentally. So, one might say, most of those mudpies are coming from MSM leftists, right? Yeah, but judging by the flavor of their stories, who's actually being targeted? Not a few of those hit-pieces concern the abortion question, and this comment to Part I illustrates the intent of the leftists. (And the author is not a flamer; his blog indicates a conservative who doesn't have a horse in this race-yet.) Sure, they're throwing bones to their pet kooks as well, but most of this MSM campaign is clearly intended to sow doubt among conservative voters. (Evidently they're not satisfied with the Romney [and/or Giuliani and/or Paul] supporters' progress on that front.)

Why is that? To me it seems quite clear...they are rightly fearful that Fred will have a walk to the nomination should he actually get into the race, and they're going to try anything and everything they can think of to undermine his considerable grassroots conservative support, in the hope that he'll back out. He's not the GOP nominee the leftists want-he's not beatable enough against their two darlings (we can forget about Edwards and the other ankle-biters, IMHO). Of the four viable candidates, I figure they'd most prefer McCain (whose emotional stability is considered by many to be questionable)-although I'm betting they'd love the non-viable and rather kooky Paul even more-followed by Giuliani, then Romney, then Fred. Yes, Fred is the last GOP candidate they want to see win the nomination. Again, if they had any real dirt on him (with which they could derail his campaign in the general), wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd sit back, shut up, and let it ride? Or even promote his candidacy via their usual subterfuge-i.e. going for the others' throats and leaving Fred be...I'm betting they're holding back plenty on the others.

So no-they have nothing substantial on Fred. So they try to portray him as sharing Giuliani's most glaring weakness among conservatives-not pro-life (enough)-and contrast his marital/family history with that of Romney, and even try to paint Fred's wife as some gold-digger/tramp with an eye toward "values" conservatives. And McCain? Let's face it here...McCain (McLame, in the Mark Levin lexicon) is dead in the water, and the MSM knows it; it's just a matter of when he folds-and who he endorses. Fred is likely the one, as the two of them are friendly, and he hasn't been throwing spitballs at McCain as Romney and Giuliani have. I have a feeling that come the day the first real polling begins, it'll be a contest between Fred and Romney. And Fred wins.

I will conclude Part II with Mark Levin's interview of Fred on Friday (7-13), and in Part III I'll get into (among other things) a bit of comparative analysis of Fred's oratory versus that of Romney and Giuliani.

Fred Thompson-The Best, The Only: Part I

Yes. The best, the only. Not the better (or lesser) of two evils. No evil to see here, unless one buys into the idea that Fred took the role of a white supremacist in a 'Wiseguy' story-line because it appealed to his true nature. That's bullclinton, but the leftists will try to portray any southerner who isn't one of them as a klansman. (Some words which are usually capitalized by the MSM and Robert Byrd...well, I don't do it. Like it or not, get used to it.)

They're already going after Fred, in fact-desperately, relentlessly-throwing whatever mudpies their infantile strategists can dream up and hoping something, anything, sticks. In fact, a friend told me just moments ago that he'd seen some report which indicated that Fred was raised a Mormon. Yeah-huh...in the '40s/'50s, in Tennessee. Right...sure. As Rush would say of a New York Crimes headline: "Gee, imagine if that were true!" Pathetic, desperate leftists-they'd be comical if they weren't so dangerous and didn't have significant numbers in the halls of Congress (as well as the federal judiciary, but that's another post). Here's a sampling of their desperation, mingled with the impotent bleatings of a few Beltway journalist pukes who aren't leftists but aren't real conservatives either. George Will, Bob Novak, Bill Kristol, etc. Three men, three votes, half a brain among them-and Will has half of that half.

In the photo above, by the way, the big guy is Charlie Daniels. The 6' 6" Fred is on the right...

More in Part II...imagine that!

Conservative-Themed T-Shirts...And a Great Cause!

My MLF (that's Mark Levin Fan for you initiates) friend Trent has some great conservative-themed t-shirts and other items for sale here. Above is the latest offering. Trent's donating a portion of the proceeds of all sales to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund, which provides tuition assistance to the children of our fallen or disabled warriors in this War On Barbarism, throughout the run of the five separate Freedom Concert events, which conclude on September 11 in New Jersey.

Sean Hannity made it all happen, along with Oliver North-great Americans, both! I understand Mark will attend two or three of the concerts this year, and the other two will attend all of them...I sure wish I could, but the prospects aren't favorable. Ah well...I'm not a Cubs fan, but I'm used to saying 'Maybe next year...'

Check out the store, and check out the rest of Trent's site while you're at it!

And if the bucks are a bit too scarce for a t-shirt or cap (or even if they aren't), you might consider helping a patriotic young lad in Brooklyn do his part in this effort. Last year he raised $250-and there were only two concerts last year, in a much shorter span of time. Young Robert is already assured of a new record, I'm told, and there are four concerts yet to come. I hope you'll join me in helping this young man git er done...and put a beautiful boyish smile on his face. He has several great items available for sale. He also has a great couple of parents.

The Leftist Nature

Several months ago I posted this little rant, and Thursday night into Friday morning (at work) I gained a bit of new perspective. Not to say that the experience changed my perspective, but it certainly expanded it somewhat.

I was stuck in a fairly small production area (a room, basically) with two women and a young guy who was nominally in charge but was out of the room most of the time, and whose chatroom handle is probably 'booty-call'...am I jealous? That's the same thing as asking if I wish I were 15 years younger than I am, which he is, but I wouldn't make that wish if his maturity-level was part of the package. He's a good kid, and intelligent-don't get me wrong on that score. And for those who are paying attention, yeah...to me, a 27-year-old is a kid. If I was in Drivers Ed when he was born, he's a kid. Maybe that's just me, but it's a bit like a few years ago when it was a compliment to get carded. Nowadays you could be three days older than the Almighty and still have to present ID. Bottom line, there's nothing wrong with being a kid-especially once you can't really pass for one anymore. This kid at least likes Stephen King's work, as I do. But I digress, big-time! Incidentally, his absence didn't bother me at all; I was able to do his job as well as my own while he was off and about-which is somewhat relevant, as I will try to demonstrate along the way.

I was working with these two women (they were working side-by-side, while I was further down the line, about ten or twelve feet away), both of whom I'd had some pleasant banter with before. The first two-hour period went just fine; the two of them chatted happily away, and they kept up, so I was keeping busy-the way I like it. Indeed, after the break I volunteered to stay where I was (rather than rotating spots) if that was fine by them, which it was. Ten or fifteen minutes later, it started. I should mention here that I'd thought I was hearing some peculiar pronouncements earlier, but with the machine noise and the distance I couldn't make out much of what they were saying at all. This time, however, their voices were raised, they were obscene, and they took turns spewing long, loud comma-free tirades.

The BDS Force is strong with those two, I'll certainly say that, but their rhetoric was anti-conservative in general. (That's Bush Derangement Syndrome, for the uninitiated.) They swapped rants about the war for a bit, as well as other leftist-sounding drivel ('They' want to end the food stamp program!); (Look at these gas prices-you know damn well them oil companies could bring em down if they wanted to!) and et cetera ad hominem ad nauseum. At one point (while doing the absent kid's job) I walked around and said in a cheery voice: "Sounds like Randi Rhodes is here!" Just to see what would happen. Neither seemed to recognize the name, which leads me to wonder if she might've been better off financially staying in adult entertainment. Porn, left-wing radio-it really comes to the same thing.

The noise level seemed to fall a little, at least for a bit, but it seemed to gradually but quickly rise again, and then at one point-when the kid favored us with a cameo appearance-one asked him which war was which (I was a little too annoyed to take notes while all this was going on), and he suggested that she was referring to Desert Storm. She said (paraphrasing): "Oh, that wasn't a real war..."

Well, that kinda did it for yours truly. "Well thanks a lot-I was there, and it sure felt like one to me!" They leaned forward and looked down the line at me (and the kid kinda glanced at me and smiled), and the one with the really big yap said "Oh-I didn't mean anything against you!" Sincerely said it, and I knew so then; it actually eased my nerves a bit. She repeated that sentiment a bit later, and I said "I understand", although I didn't specify what I understand.

I saved that for this report from the lower-middle class, heartland USA, in part because I'm in a somewhat tenuous position. Like those two women, I am at present a 'temp'. That may soon change, as the kid's moving to a different position, leaving his open. I've established a reputation for being dependable, punctual, and amiable; I get along well with all the regulars, including even the one relatively difficult line-lead that everyone else complains about, and the other temps as well. Not because I kiss up, either, but because I shut up; I don't make waves. All three of my references are long-time, well-regarded employees, so I have a fair shot at getting hired in. As a general rule, one has to be working temp at this company for a year or better, and some existing employee has to quit, retire, or die before they'll hire someone. I say all this to forestall the understandable question: "Well, why didn't you engage them in debate instead of standing back there annoyed?"

Has it occurred to anyone reading this to wonder why it is that these two loud, obscene women would seemingly assume that I not only would disagree with their rhetorical spew but would've much preferred not to have to listen to it?

I suspect that it didn't occur to them. Had they thought about it at all, which is unlikely in the extreme, they would've probably thought something like 'well he's a nice guy; how could he not agree with this?' in whatever short-hand the mental process utilizes.

I don't really hold it against them. I first started this screed the very night it occurred; it is now Monday-into-Tuesday, another night of work, and I was assigned to the same line as the big-mouth. I was polite with her, and she'd forgotten the whole thing. And that brings me to the very crux of this post, referring back to the other one I linked at the beginning: A disconcerting number of people who support the leftists do so not because they support the actual goals of the leftists, but because they are in many ways child-like. I'm not a parent, but I think it's fair to say that I've observed enough of young kids in my 41 years (having more nieces and nephews than I can number without some thought) to have some perspective-never mind that I was one myself twenty-five years ago. The mindset seems to be that of an eleven- or twelve-year-old, well beyond the tooth-fairy age but far from mature, yet often reasonably intelligent. So then here goes...channeling that mindset:

"Anyone who disagrees with or argues against a part of my belief-system is mean-spirited/a bigot/doesn't like me/just stupid!"

"But it's bad to fight just because somebody wants to fight you! What's wrong with trying to talk to somebody who wants to fight you when it might just be a misunderstanding? Or maybe it's something you did, even if you don't know it, and you can work it out? Wouldn't it be better to just not fight and be the better person? Nobody really gets hurt that way!"

"But it doesn't have to be this way, don't you see that? The world should be a better place-and it can be if we're just nice to everybody! We just have to give a little!"

I could go on, but that gave me a headache. I think you'll agree that it's a good sampling of the rhetoric of the political left, as projected through their propaganda wing-the so-called mainstream media. Simplistic idealism based upon emotionalism; no sign of reason or realism. That essentially defines the rhetoric of the leftists and their proxies which is intended for public consumption, and it's not at all related to their true (Marxist/Stalinist) goals and intentions; they dare not make those public-not overtly. All the same...with the power of the pen/microphone/news-camera/NEA teacher, they have the ability to inculcate this very child-like mindset into those who are-despite their natural intelligence-easily dumbed-down, easily led, and easily indoctrinated.

Could this be not by design? I think not. And although this is of no small concern to me, I do find it heartening that there are so many true conservatives today--many of them even younger than those two intelligent yet sheep-like women--who intuitively dismiss the MSM crap as agenda-driven, and who understand the very real danger these leftists pose to America. It gives me hope that we will survive as a nation even in spite of GW Bush and the Republicans of today.

Next: (I think!) That Fred post I mentioned.

Yhello! Yhello!

Is this thing on? Testing...one, two, three...Yhello!

Very good, then! Those of you who are familiar with Mark Levin (most of you, I would imagine) will understand the title of this post. If you stumbled in here by accident and are not familiar with Mark but you're curious, check this out. It's in my blog/site links, but I wanted to be clear right up front...I am indeed a conservative.

I happen to believe that a good many people who vote for Democrats are misguided, undereducated, overeducated, beholden to the Democrats in some way or another, or simply mistrustful of Republicans. (And in light of recent events, I wouldn't blame them for that last.) Or some combination of the preceding. Quite a lot of others who vote for modern Democrats sound downright Marxist, however. They have their cyber-hangouts, but I won't dignify their existence by linking them here; you probably know what they are, and I don't visit them myself, and (unless you're one of them) my aim here is not to annoy you.

And, one may ask, just what is my aim here? Pretty much the same as that of anyone else with a blog...to occasionally share my perspective on current events/issues with anyone who might be interested, and maybe to engage in a little polite discussion of same. That's a tall order these days, I know; I myself am not above getting testy with Marxists or other obnoxious people who purport to be conservatives, as you can see for yourself if you check out my cyber-home. (Registration is required in order to view. My handle there is DrWhoFan65.)

I will not welcome rancorous debate or abusive, threatening, and/or obscene language here. (I'm not a prude at all, but I consider obscene language both unnecessary and unhelpful-and, frankly, most usually a sign of immaturity.) Commenting on someone else's comment is fine, but please direct comments to me; if you wish to engage someone in direct debate, get a (chat) room. I will moderate any and all comments. Freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment ensures that a person will not be punished for expressing a dissenting or unpopular viewpoint; it does not obligate me to provide anyone and everyone with a forum to express their views in an obscene and/or obnoxious manner. This is my house, so to speak; anyone who doesn't like the ground rules can go get a place of his/her own. All that said, I don't mind any civil, reasonably thoughtful opinion which is contrary to my own. I can tolerate lazy spelling, grammar, and punctuation-so long as the point itself is clear (and that goes double for leftists...''just goes to show ya...'') but spell-check is our friend. I'm not a snob, but I find this helpful when I want to verify a definition or spelling.

Here's a bit of background on me, and I may as well begin with my handle and blog title. The latter has no particular meaning; it's a phrase that popped into my mind, and I thought it had a nice ring to it. As for the former, it's pretty much self-explanatory. I was in the US Army for seven years ('84-'91), and for five months of the final year I was part of a service/support unit deployed to the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. It was hardly my idea of fun, but of course the front-line troops had it tougher than we did. I am indeed proud of my service, and even more than that, I am privileged to have been allowed to serve my country. I use the "proud" as a distinction between myself and other veterans who feel neither proud nor privileged to have served, yet will cite their service if it suits their purpose. John Kerry comes to mind. The '65 part indicates my birth-year.

Aside from those seven years, I've lived in East Central Illinois all my life-possibly the most conservative area of the state, although there are pockets of leftist wackos--especially in Urbana (which is actually worse than Chicago in that sense...college town-go figure). The small town I grew up in (Pop. <5000) style="font-style: italic;">was a leftie, in case you wonder, but not the bad kind.) I took quite a number of college courses while in the Army, most of them while I was stationed in Italy. Tuition Assistance was a great thing to have for a lower-middle class kid like me; I now wish I'd taken full advantage of it.

I've never really attached a party label to myself, but in the primary I wouldn't ask for a Dem ballot at gunpoint. Not even here in currently socialist-occupied Illinois, where the relatively conservative state Republican party is in a shambles (interminably so, it would seem). But I digress. Aside from the fact that my dad was a conservative, based upon my background, I would probably be deemed (by a leftist, at least) to be a natural Democrat. (In the old sense of the word, that may be true in some respects, but not nowadays.) For reasons I see no point going into, I've gotten a lot of hard knocks since I left the Army, and I'm in a position where factory employment is my only real option at present (not that that's a bad thing, but it's hardly what I envisioned for myself upon my discharge).

But "The Man" isn't at fault there; I am ultimately responsible for my own lapses in judgment (even when helped in their commission), and I am likewise ultimately responsible for overcoming the difficulties those lapses have caused me. I've been blessed to have some caring folks help me along in that respect, and that help has been invaluable, yet in the end I'm the one living this life-such as it is. (In case anyone's wondering, no felonies or prison-terms are involved here, and my discharge from the Army was honorable.) I don't need any overpaid, under-worked bureaucratic twit to feed me, house me, clothe me, find me the job I feel I 'deserve'-I'm a big boy now, thank you; I'll wage my own battles, and the more government stays out of my way, the better my odds of victory/success in all things. I do not accept the mantle of victimhood, which is precisely what modern Democrats in the political arena both promote and exploit in the furtherance of their agenda. I intend to prevail in spite of them.

I could say much more, but I believe I've touched on the most relevant things I wish to share here, while leaving the door open for cross-examination. I've just gotten started here, in case you haven't noticed. What the hell's a 'template'?

Coming soon: "Why Fred Thompson Should (and Will) Be the Next President"; "Internet Sales Taxes: Is It Time for Another 'Surge'?" (Not necessarily in that order.) And much more to come.