A freeper has the correct analysis:
" Way back at the beginning, before anyone said anything about him, I was wishing Fred Thompson would get in the race. He doesn't seem to me to be someone who has been lusting for power since his earliest years. That's a principal fault of Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. The Presidency defines their being. It was all about them.
I want someone who takes on the mantle reluctantly but who also will be able to make clear for people what the United States was supposed to be about: a land of liberty where the federal government protects the people from foreign enemies and the Constitution protects the people from the federal government, leaving everything else up to the ingenuity, hard work, and voluntary associations of the citizenry.
We have now reached a place where a major party claims there really is no foreign enemy that is not of our own making and that the federal government has to protect the individual from himself. They appear to believe that people will truly be free when the federal government has defined in law the specifics of how every aspect of everyone's life should be and has constructed an enforcement apparatus to make it happen.
The thought that there could be hundreds of millions living whose future rests completely upon their own shoulders and how they choose to provide for themselves and their families either scares or outrages them, depending on whether they believe those people to be either misguided or arrogant. Therefore, they believe that the federal government, with themselves in the driver's seat, should help plan for the fools who can't do it themselves or put in their places the reckless ones who think they can. They also appear to believe that anyone who opposes them, therefore, are the enemies of the people, and, because they have cast themselves as the voice of the people, enemies of themselves. You're either with them or you're an evil to be extirpated.
How in the world is this any different from the totalist politics of the Nazis or communists?
When I was in high school I read Jefferson's suggestion that a bloody rebellion every so often would be a good thing for the nation. My idea then was that he was saying, "Hey, if this whole Constitutional government idea we came up with doesn't work out, just toss it aside and try something else." I realize now, and I wish that more people did, that he meant, "If a system of government grows up that violates this Constitution and Declaration of Independence and starts to eat up the people's substance and to oppress the people, get rid of it, even if you have to use bloody force the same way we did against King George. You'll be doing it for the same reason. The federal government is not the United States. It's a means to an end and that end is liberty in peace. If the existing one can no longer serve as that means, scrap it and reconstitutionalize."
I'm hoping that Fred will be able to restore a little clarity to the historical perspective. For all those people in the past who yearned to be free, there are even more now, especially since the degree of oppression in the modern world far exceeds anything during the centuries that led to the American Revolution."
However, the mistake is thinking Fred Thompson should be the candidate to support.
