Sunday, January 13, 2008

Robert Novak Makes the Case for Fred Thompson

Robert Novak, that anicient, maverick renegade of pundits, makes the case today for Fred Thompson. The reason? Everyone else is promising to spend us all into bankruptcy. First, the Democrats.
Listening to the Democratic contenders, for example, is like listening to a 4-year-old tell Santa what she wants for Christmas -- an array of cherished desires, and no sense that someone has to pay for them. Universal health insurance! Affordable college! Grants for child care! Money for schools! Every doll ever made by American Girl!

According to the nonpartisan website PolitiFact, which assesses the accuracy of what candidates say, all the programs envisioned by Hillary Clinton would add about $174 billion a year in outlays. And that was before she unveiled a $70 billion fiscal stimulus plan Friday. Barack Obama, according to a November analysis in the McClatchy newspapers, has promised "at least $181 billion in new annual spending on middle-class tax cuts, health care and retirement and energy plans."
Could one of you out there who supports a Democrat please explain your reasoning? Seriously. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Now for the Republicans.
If Democrats love spending money, Republicans love cutting taxes. Not so long ago, they assured us that lower taxes would inevitably force lower spending. In his time in office, though, President Bush has refuted that claim.

Since 2001, federal revenues have declined by 7 percent as a share of gross domestic product, while federal outlays have grown by 9 percent as a share of GDP. When you increase spending without increasing revenue, you aren't cutting taxes but raising them -- for future taxpayers.
If you're supporting someone on the Republican side other than Fred Thompson, can you explain your reasoning to me? Seriously. I don't get how cutting taxes and increasing spending is supposed to work.

How about Fred?
But among the Republicans, only Fred Thompson has been willing to risk the wrath of the elderly by calling for a cut in the growth of Social Security benefits. The supposedly fearless John McCain targets pork-barrel goodies, which are only a small part of the problem. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee strenuously dodge the entitlement issue.
Fred Thompson for president.


Anonymous said...

I think you're ignoring someone... That said Fred is my second choice but my first would certainly do a better job of limiting big government.

ronupnorth said...

Mitt Romney reminds me of a big shiny Ken doll that will say anything to get elected. He's so artificial. Although Fred is a good actor too of course.

Dean said...

Anon, Why are you Ronulans suddenly going so... anonymous?

Screw it. Go Chargers!

B-Daddy said...

The more I listen to Fred Thompson, the more I find that I agree with him over the other candidates. But I am concerned that he can't get traction. I think part of the reason is his generally poor delivery. Contrary to the snarky comment about him being an actor, he doesn't seem to bring much stagecraft to his debate performance. I wish he would. It doesn't bother me, nor IMHO, the American public. People want a President who can communicate effectively. That includes his body language matching his words and his ties matching his shirts.
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul, in 1988, but I can't stand him anymore and the Ronulans need to grow up and stop the silly tricks.

Dean said...

The Ronulan goon squad going after Sean Hannity in New Hampshire was pretty cool. Didn't know who I was rooting for/against, though.