Tommy Thompson drops out of 2008 US presidential race
Posted on August 13th, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, Ames, Bush Cabinet, Executive Branch, Iowa, Matt Stone, Paul, Pennsylvania, politics, Teller, Tommy Thompson, Trey Parker, United States, USAFormer Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson is abandoning his presidential bid, his campaign announced Sunday night.
Thompson, who also served in the Bush Cabinet, did not meet the expectations he set for himself in the Ames Republican straw poll held Saturday.
“I want to thank the people of Iowa who were welcoming and supportive as well as my volunteers and contributors from around the country,” Thompson said in a written statement.
Thompson, former secretary of Health and Human Services, had hoped to place second in the poll. Instead, he finished sixth.
While probably unlikely, perhaps a few of his supporters will move to supporting Dr. Paul. If only we could get some bigger name politicians and celebs to support Paul. Where are Penn and Teller? Matt Stone and Trey Parker? I’m usually not interested in knowing what those in Hollywood believe… but given that the supporters of freedom there are few and far between it’d be nice to have them speak out to raise awareness.
4 Responses to “Tommy Thompson drops out of 2008 US presidential race”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I don’t know about Penn and Teller, but I do know that the South Park creators are “Republitarians”, not true Libertarians.
In 2004 Trey Parker had this to say:
“I hate Republicans, but I really fucking hate Democrats. I didn’t want to vote for Bush, but I did just to prevent Kerry from assuming power. The only other candidate I might have voted for was Badnarik, but I couldn’t stomach his weak-ass foreign policy. I just want a candidate who would be Badnarik at home, and Bush abroad…is that too much to ask Libertarian domestic policy and Neoconservative foreign policy.”
-Trey Parker
So you see right there that Trey Parker would never advocate for Ron Paul because Mr. Paul does not advocate current U.S. foreign policy.
One could assume Penn and Teller or other celebrity Libertarians think similarly, but I don’t have anything that confirms this.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Penn and Teller are quite libertarian. I’d recommend watching their show Bullshit.
I don’t know what context that quote was in but it was in 2004 and a decent amount has changed since. I’m a little taken back though that he would think the neocon foreign policy of forcing freedom on people at the barrel of a gun to secure ‘our oil’ was a good one. Without knowing what Trey knows in regard to the history of our foreign policy in the Middle East I really can’t comment on it. I’d love however to hear his opinions now on the subject and on Ron Paul. Given the current field of candidates I’m not sure who would fit that libertarian at home, neocon abroad description. Half the D’s are neocons that just support gun control and socialized healthcare more than the R neocons. Regardless, that ‘Republitarian’ idea seems completely contradictory and I have a hard time imagining how someone would argue the position.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
If you’ve ever listened to the Neal Boortz radio show you’d get a good idea of the Republitarian/Neolibertarian political beliefs and how seemingly mainstream they are. Neal Boortz shares the same political ideology of the South Park creators and somehow manages to have a syndicated AM talk show.
Neal Boortz argues, like Trey Parker, that U.S. foreign policy needs to be exremely aggressive yet at the same time wants government size reduced. I haven’t heard Boortz explain how it would be possible to maintain a small government plus have a large aggressive military.
I think they’re totally wrong, but I guess a lot of people agree with the likes of Boortz and Parker.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:09 am
You can argue small government and large aggressive military. However, the ideas of libertarianism fundamentally go against the neocon foreign policy. Spreading their vision of the world by force simply can not function with the idea of freedom and the non-aggression principle.