Editorials / Guest Columns
Please Leave Comment
Article Submitted by Renee Daley, October 1, 2007
Bowling Green State University
BGSU 4 Fred Thompson
Clinton on Thompson
Bill Clinton tells us why we like Fred Thompson?
Apparently former President Bill Clinton has the insight as to why Republicans like(d) Fred Thompson and shares his pearls of wisdom with Kristin Jensen of Bloomberg.com. In an article entitled “Bill Clinton Says Thompson Fumbles May Cost Him, Admires McCain”, President Clinton talks about the “durable” Rudy Giuliani and the “admirable” John McCain. However, when the conversation turned to Fred Thompson, Clinton had the following to say,
Republicans initially liked Thompson because of his “great manner and that macho stuff you know they love”.
Great manner and that macho stuff? Boy do I feel stupid. Obviously I missed a conference call, a memo or something. I always thought it was his acting in The Hunt for Red October (which is my personal favorite) and portrayal of District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law and Order that made conservative sheep flock to him. I had absolutely no idea that it was Thompson’s machismo that was drawing me in. For some odd reason, I thought it was his support of conservative principles, and federalist views that earned Thompson my support and respect.
Clinton also takes on Thompson downplaying Osama bin Laden as a threat. Bwah?! The same man who had bin Laden offered to him on a silver platter by the Saudi government wants to criticize Thompson for minimizing bin Laden? As John McEnroe would say, “You can’t be serious”! This is exactly where the problem lies–the Democrats tend to look at a narrow picture, while Republicans look at the broader picture. Osama bin Laden is one of the most evil beings on the face of the Earth and needs to be brought to justice for the 9/11 attacks, but by no means should our focus be solely on him. Simply put, bin Laden is one piece in a larger puzzle. All I can say is, Mr. President, when you take your eye off of Iran and North Korea and other rogue nations hell bent on destroying our culture, our economy and our way of life — then you are minimizing the threat to our country.
Mr. Clinton also thinks that Fred Thompson’s inability to render an opinion or lack of knowledge about the Terry Schiavo case is a pitfall as well. Clinton told Ms. Jensen,
“Being for it or against it, anything is better than not knowing.”
First off, Congress had absolutely no jurisdiction or right to intervene in the Schiavo case to begin with. Secondly, Thompson’s personal opinion really plays no part in a federalist stance on such issues. While Thompson may feel strongly about certain issues, his respect for the Constitution and a State’s right to enact law trumps any and all of those opinions and or feelings. We are a confederacy of states that is bonded together for the common good. Two of the original intents of a localized central government was to provide a strong national defense, and settle any disputes that might occur between the states as they arose - not to establish a nanny state. However, the federal government has continued to grow exponentially (thanks to FDR and LBJ), and has taken on more power than it should legally be allowed to have. As the citizens of the United States, we should be extremely uncomfortable with the growing federal bureaucracy. The more complacent we become in handing over our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and our individual state sovereignty to the federal government– the less effective our voice becomes in government matters. If that happens, then we dishonor men like Jefferson, and Washington who fought to gain our freedom and independence from England.
And that should scare any true patriot to death.
Article Submitted by Renee Daley, September 20, 2007
Bowling Green State University
BGSU 4 Fred Thompson
Liberals and S-P’s Convenient Use of “Choice”
Who Really Believes in Choice?
One word is more manipulated than any other in our lexicon today. The word I’m thinking of has become the rallying cry for sexism, selfishness, personal irresponsibility, and murder. Any guesses as to what that word is, or do you give up? The word is choice…the battle cry for the “reproductive rights” movement in the United States.
Now many of you may wonder –how in the world does the topic of “choice” relate back to Fred Thompson? It’s really quite simple. If you haven’t seen Thompson’s reaction to Senator Hillary Clinton’s second attempt at “HillaryCare” you should take time to watch it. It’s posted at BGSU 4 Fred Thompson, Fred08.com, and YouTube. During Thompson’s monologue on “HillaryCare” he said the following,
“The best way to improve the best health care in the world - which is what we’ve got right here in the United States, is to expand choice…not punishment. But, some Democrats…you know choice to them is like a cross is to a vampire. Don’t like to see it coming down the road.”
While Thompson’s comments do not specifically discuss abortion or the “pro-choice” movement, it is easy to at least point out the hypocrisies of liberal Democrats and the Secular-Progressive crowd. Not to mention, that we do know where Fred stands on pro-life issues and the backing he has received from National Right to Life.
Groups like NOW, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL have a collective fear of Roe v. Wade being overturned by the United States Supreme Court, or worse yet - the American people actually getting to vote on abortion in state or national elections. Moreover, when it actually comes to choice - it’s their way or the highway. In the pro-abortion crowd, unrestricted abortion, keeping parents in the dark and consequence free sex are the only choices even considered. Supporting women who choose to keep a baby -to be a mother and stay-at-home, or choose adoption, or choose to abstain from sexual intercourse never enters the equation. Nor do these groups support a father’s right to be involved in the decision to abort or support his choice to raise a child. Men only matter when it’s time to cough up child support check. In addition, you might as well forget about parents being informed at ALL. We all know that a parent’s right to make decisions about invasive medical procedures for their minor children isn’t important. We also know that an abortion provider who is legally obligated to notify parents that their daughter is seeking to kill her unborn child - will in fact help minors find the legal loophole to bypass parental notification just to save face.
The Liberal and S-P crowd seems to think they’ve cornered the market on the word “choice”. Obviously if you support a woman’s right to choose, then you are “pro-choice”. If you are against aborticide as I am, then you’re stuck with the label “anti-choice”. Whoa! Wait just a second. If you choose to support pregnant mothers who want to keep their babies, life and the unborn, then you’re against choice? That logic absolutely blows my mind.
Liberals and Secular-Progressives only want choice when it is convenient for them. They support choice when it comes to killing the most innocent among us. Conservatives are horrible people for not wanting to support that “choice”. Socially conservative Democrats are evil for not towing the line for the radical feminists and the fringe left of the party. We just want to rule over a woman’s reproductive organs with an iron fist. That’s what choice ends up being for most of them. However, we’re supposed to magically hand over our medical care and insurance, our retirement funds and our children’s education to the nanny government that the far-left in the Democratic party want to impose on the rest of us. All of this in the name of saving us from the “most foul, depraved and incredibly poisonous” Republicans.
The sad thing about it is that I willingly towed that liberal line for seventeen years. I was rabidly pro-choice, and had no problem chanting the feminist mantra of “it’s my body, my choice!” But now I find myself in the ever growing minority of conservatives under attack (both Republican and Democrat) still asking about my right to choose. I guess in order to have equal right to “choice” I have to support unrestricted, and unfettered abortion.
Now really… what kind of choice is that?
Another Article Submitted by Renee Daley, September 11, 2007
Bowling Green State University
BGSU 4 Fred Thompson
The Audacity of John Edwards
The Left Again Plays Politics with National Security
Senator John Edwards wants to scold Fred Thompson. Apparently the Presidential hopeful takes issue with Fred Thompson’s recent statement regarding Osama bin Laden. A press release dated September 7, 2007 and posted at the Senator’s website says the following,
“Fred Thompson said today that Osama bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else’– after the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself to its pre-9/11 strength. Not only has the Republicans’ so-called ‘war on terror’ failed to make us safer, now they’re taking their eye off the ball again.”
He’s joking right? Republicans are taking their eye off the ball again? Republicans are the only one’s with their eyes on the ball, and the Democrats never had their eye on the ball to begin with. Does Edwards really expect us to believe that he, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other tow-the-line liberals have the safety of our troops and the security of our nation at heart? Who’s demanding dates for withdrawal? Who says the war in Iraq is lost? Who keeps flip-flopping their position on Iraq depending on the political winds? It certainly isn’t conservatives. Who refuses to denounce the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus - “Betray Us”? While I may not agree with the war in Iraq, we are there now, we MUST support our military personnel, and we MUST finish the job. There are no other options.
Edwards continues his press release saying,
“…I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice. And I can tell you one thing: I don’t care what bin Laden says in his video about our politics or our policy in this country. This murderer of thousands of innocent Americans has no right to be heard. The only thing he deserves is justice, and as president I will do everything in my power to deliver it to him.”
Let’s not forget that it was Senator Edwards who called the “war on terror a “bumper sticker” slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq” (5/23/07 - Beth Fouhy, AP) at a speech he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations. The audacity of John Edward is absolutely mind-boggling.
Edwards goes on to talk about his “bold new counterterrorism policy”. The base of his so-called plan is a “multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization better known as CITO. Edwards says that CITO “will unite strength and cooperation to create a new coalition of nations cooperating to root out and shut down terrorist cells.” Great, he wants to outsource our security. This is nothing more than the United Nations of Counter-terrorism and it cannot be good for the United States - period. As soon as we begin handing over our sovereignty to other countries, we might as well call it quits. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin are probably spinning in their graves.
Edwards ends his press release by scolding Fred Thompson,
“Fred Thompson should know better. Responsible candidates talk about real solutions that will make America safer from terrorism. They don’t ignore the fact that George Bush’s policies have only made the threat of terrorism worse.”
Oh yeah, like the real solutions John Edwards and other liberals have for the growing entitlement state, health care, and our failing educational system. Their “real solutions” are to keep throwing money at the problem or to put the Federal government in charge –adding to an already overwhelming bureaucracy (Thanks George W.). The liberal attitude about terrorism is that if we were all just more understanding and nicer to the terrorists then they would leave us alone. If we could just stop bullying the Middle East and quit being so imperialistic then all would be right in the world. They forget that we are dealing with Islamic fundamentalists who are hell bent on crushing our economy and our way of life. But then again, liberal Democrats and Secular-Progressives want to do the same thing.
Article Submitted by Renee Daley
Bowling Green State University
BGSU 4 Fred Thompson
Thompson Gets an A+ for Education
Education, Federalism, & Fred Thompson
In 1897 John Dewey wrote,
The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences” (Pedagogic Creed).
In this one statement, Dewey concludes that a teacher’s first responsibility is to help shape and define the students they instruct. However, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the teaching profession is drastically changing and not for the better.
There has been much discussion among educators in regards to No Child Left Behind. For those unfamiliar with the law, a brief explanation as to what it states may be in order. The No Child Left Behind Act is an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. President George W. Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002. The main premise of No Child Left Behind is to hold school districts and teachers accountable for student performance and to improve the overall quality of public school education. The United States Department of Education website describes the four basic tenets of NCLB,
No Child Left Behind was designed to change the culture of America’s schools by closing the achievement gap, offering more flexibility, giving parents more options, and teaching students based on what works. (Accountability)
As a Human Development and Family Studies major with an Early Childhood emphasis at Bowling Green State University, the importance of education hits close to home. I plan on teaching in some capacity once I graduate. It is no secret that I support private school education, school vouchers, charter schools and absolutely detest No Child Left Behind. While I do agree that teachers and schools must be accountable for student learning and parents should have a say in what school their child attends, I disagree with standardized testing as the end all be all method of measuring student success. President Bush has linked federal funds to school performance, and expects all students regardless of ability to take the same type of multiple guess tests to prove what they know. The Department of Education should be renamed the Department of the Uneducated or even better –totally eliminated. Public schools have become nothing more than indoctrination stations for liberals and our ever growing nanny state. These schools are failing our children more and more as time goes by and all parents can do is stand by and helplessly watch their child’s education go up in flames.
Education is one more issue that I can agree with Fred Thompson on. He understands the faults of No Child Left Behind, and the money pit it has become. Thompson also understands and knows that the Federal government really should not be in the business of overseeing education in the first place. Thompson addresses education on his website under the Principles section –which mainly discusses Federalism and the role of the Federal government. Thompson states,
Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states.
Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150 percent without results to match. The No Child Left Behind law itself increased federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in compliance time and costs. The classrooms of America, where the learning actually takes place, receive but 61 cents out of every tax-payer dollar appropriated.
A little more federalist confidence in the wisdom of state and local governments might go a long way toward improving America’s public schools. The most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.
It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals. Adherence to this principle would make for fewer bureaucracies, fewer regulations, and less expense, while promoting educational achievement. There are bills pending in Congress that would move us in this direction, and I hope Congress gives them the attention they deserve.
Thank God someone like Fred Thompson finally gets it.
This page will publish periodic editorials and columns on issues relevant to the Fred Thompson candidacy. Guest editorials are encouraged. Anyone wishing to submit an editorial should send a request by email to the Site Administrator
Your request should include the following information:
- Title of Article
- Short Description of Article
Article Requirements:
- Should be ~750-1500 Words
- Must be Supportive of Fred Thompson
- Must be in Good Taste
- Final Decision is at sole discretion of Administrative Staff
Entries (RSS)