New Fred Thompson thread

[RonSC]

The bottom line

is really simple, so let's not complicate the issue: Most ( thinking folks) vote first for the candidate who's platform most closely mirrors their OWN views, politically, and morally. Secondly, that candidate must have at least an outside chance of garnering enough votes within his/her party to defeat the opposition. IMO, Thompson meets both requirements...in spades. Just look at his poll numbers bearing in mind that he has not yet (officially) announced his candidacy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio..._(United_States)_2008_presidential_candidates
and his voting record:http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

Ron

 

[TCB in TN]

Is Fred perfect? No, but realisticly look at the alternatives. Today there are maybe 4 or 5 people who MIGHT have a shot at winning in 08.

Rudy, McCain, Hillary, Obama, and then Fred. The 1st 4 are peas in a pod, 2 wear the republican sticker but can anyone on here (with a straight face) say they are anything other than RINOs. Hillary and Obama are just more open with their Socialist leanings. Fred is and has pretty much always been on the Right side (pun certainly intended) of about every arguement. I have read some about RP and I like a lot of what he has to say, not anymore than Fred, but I do like him, but he doesn't poll like he could win anything nationally. Fred does. Until he started stumping I was convinced I would just stay home and not waste my vote for any of the leftists who were running. Fred gives me someone I think I can actually vote FOR, rather than trying to just pick the lesser of the evils and hope for the best.

 

[NickEllis]

As for those of you who trust a far-left anecdote, with ZERO proof, just hold your horses. I've seen Fred Thompson drive that red pickup truck hundreds of miles, from county to county. It was a great way to get into the populist heart, and enabled him to get his conservative message through. And it was a conservative message he ACTED ON when he was in the senate. I've never heard him make a promise on the campaign trail he didn't try his hardest to keep.

If he ever DID give up the red pickup for a comfortable car on his way home, does that mean ANYTHING? Its like changing clothes for different situations. Sometimes I wear my boots, sometimes I wear Armani.... nothing wrong with dressing for a specific situation.

Anyone who allows anecdotes (including mine) to be the foundation of their opinion needs a reality check. Get some actual facts.

 

[Joe Gunns]

Supported Goldwater with confidence, but was 2 young 2 vote.
Voted 4 nixon, with misgivings both times.
Voted 4 Ford, with misgivings, but he lost.
Voted 4 Reagan, with misgivings in '80, with confidence in '84.
Voted 4 Bush 1, with misgivings both times.
Voted 4 Dole, with misgivings.
Voted 4 Bush 2, with misgivings both times.
In every case except 4 1984, I voted 4 somebody else in the primary.
The only successful candidate that did not justify my misgivings when elected was Reagan. In each case, there was no way the alternatives in the general election were better, as Carter and Clinton amply demonstrated.
I've misgivings 'bout Thompson, biggest one being that he's not held an executive position. Of the "upper tier" candidates he is the only one I would vote for. If he ends up being the nominee, I will probably vote 4 him, but am leaning toward a couple of those "lower tier" boys in the primary and we got droughts, floods, wind storms and a blizzard or two to get through before the first round of votin' comes up.

 

[Monkeyleg]

The comments about Fred Thompson having served only in the senate, and voting on portions of bills, is legitimate. That's why it's tough for someone to go from congress to the White House, as a member of congress may vote several times on a single piece of legislation before it's finally passed. That was one of John Kerry's liabilities: GW's team could selectively pick away at Kerry over his votes on legislation.

As for Thompson's lack of "executive experience," that's certainly a legitimate point. But look at the rest of the Republican field. Only Romney and Huckabee have executive experience.

And on the Democrat side? With the exception of Bill Richardson, it's all senators, one of whom has only had experience in the US Senate for two years.

Remember, too, that Bill Clinton had "executive experience" governing a state with an economy smaller than the city of Chicago's. The same is true of Huckabee.

I don't expect to agree with any politician 100%. It's simply impossible, given the number of issues.

 

[Erebus]

Rudy, McCain, Hillary, Obama, and then Fred

I think McCain is done now that he has allied with Kennedy on the Amnesty Bill. Romney is polling higher than Rudy and McCain in Iowa and NH. I would say the list is Hillary, Obama, Rudy, Romney, F. Thompson.

And about the southern polls in the northeast. The accent is killer in the eyes of the people up here. As soon as they hear the accent they start thinking about Deliverance and hearing banjos.

 

[lacoochee]

Thanks Erebus, nice and bigoted, I am getting really tired of the cousin jokes and the whole "Deliverence" schtick. The way I see it, is that Yankees, like to make their little jokes, because they are threatened by the fact that our culture is still growing and thriving while theirs has become unhinged and is in fact fading into history.

 

[Marshall]

And about the southern polls in the northeast. The accent is killer in the eyes of the people up here. As soon as they hear the accent they start thinking about Deliverance and hearing banjos.

They're not smart people "up there" then. But we already we know that by whom they elect.

 

[GTSteve03]

They certainly don't seem to mind the accent much with the way there's so many of them moving down here every year. Guess they're trying to turn it into home, complete with their socialist governments.

I will say one good thing about Fred Thompson. At least he was born in the South (Alabama) unlike ole GW, who is no Texan, but was born in Connecticut.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"And about the southern polls in the northeast. The accent is killer in the eyes of the people up here. As soon as they hear the accent they start thinking about Deliverance and hearing banjos."

I guess that's why the last Northeasterner elected president who hadn't already served as VP was JFK.

Republicans and moderate Democrats cannot win without the Southern vote. And Northeastern Republicans are, with few exceptions, more liberal than most Southern Democrats.

If Fred Thompson, Guiliani, McCain, Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, or most of the other front-runners wins, this will be the first time in decades that someone went directly from congress to the White House.

 

[publius]

Giuliani isn't in Congress, he's in some other mob.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

If Fred Thompson gets in the race, he's got my vote. The way I see it, the other candidates are a bunch of clowns, they generate zero excitement for me.

1) Mitt Romeny = looks presidential, speaks presidential, has so far raised quite a bit of money. One problem, Romeny can't seem to get traction, he's stagnant in the polls.

2) Guliani = liberal Republican. Supported strict gun control for decades, now all of a sudden he is running away from that record, so he can get elected, then he's back to supporting gun control. His statements on gun control are wishy-washy and weak. He's pro-choice, thats a deal breaker for me, I'm pro-life. He's charismatic, smart, and has the credentials. However, based on his record, I cannot support him.

3) McCain = Rino Republican, maverick, cannot be trusted with core conservative issues. He likes to get in bed with liberals like Ted Kennedy (immigration) and Russ Feingold (campaign finance reform), both of McCain's "compromises" have only made bad situations worse. He's 70 years old and has a shaky 2nd Ammendment record. No go here.

4) Fred Thompson = charismatic, smart, he's a true conservative, he's pro RTKBA. He's the obvious choice for me.

One comment about Ron Paul, some people like him based on his 2A support. After what I heard him say about the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, he said we brought on ourselves, based on our presence in the middle east. In my opinion, this guy is a nut, this statement proves it. Guliani took him to task on it as well. No way could I support this guy, not after an outrageous comment like that.

 

[GTSteve03]

One comment about Ron Paul, some people like him based on his 2A support. After what I heard him say about the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, he said we brought on ourselves, based on our presence in the middle east. In my opinion, this guy is a nut, this statement proves it. Guliani took him to task on it as well. No way could I support this guy, not after an outrageous comment like that.

So I'm assuming you feel the entire 9/11 Commission Report, which Ron Paul basically was quoting from, was outrageous and written by a bunch of nuts?

 

[Monkeyleg]

Hey, this is my thread. You want to mention Ron Paul? Go to one of the other 100 Ron Paul threads on THR.

GTSteve03: "They certainly don't seem to mind the accent much with the way there's so many of them moving down here every year. Guess they're trying to turn it into home, complete with their socialist governments."

Sorry I missed your post. Yeah, you folks must really love screwed up liberals bringing their screwed up policies down to your state, and then insisting that those same failed policies will work in the South.

I see a few problems on Fred Thompson's radar screen. One is that he's divorced. But, then, Guiliani has been divorced two or three times. And he had an affair with a staffer while still married. He's the Second Coming of Clinton.

Mitt Romney? Which Mitt Romney? The anti-gun governor of one of the most anti-gun states, or the Mitt Romney who bought a life membership in the NRA just last year?

McCain? This would be his third try at the presidency. You'd think the guy would have learned the first time around. Even Al Gore seems reconciled to the fact that he lost twice, and his only career is convincing polar bears that they're going to drown.

An earlier poster criticized Fred Thompson because he was an actor, and knew how to act, or present himself.

Gee. Does anyone think that a candidate for president, or even the president himself, doesn't rehearse a speech? That any president's state of the union addresses aren't tested ahead of time in front of focus groups, just like ads for any consumer product you can name?

When Fred Thompson officially declares, we're going to hear every last bit of dirt about him that the opposition may have. Until such time, and unless such dirt causes me to change my mind, I think he's the best candidate we have. Maybe the best since Reagan (I hope).

 

[snuffy]

Go here to sign a petition to draft Fred Thompson;
http://www.fred08.com/

While at that website, listen to some of his podcasts. I love to listen to him talk. Long on common sense, which is hard to find anymore.

 

[RealGun]

Maybe the best since Reagan (I hope).

Don't get carried away. He is simply the first one that appears to be electable, the first to credibly serve the religious right segment of the GOP vote while in some balance with other issues. He also has a good command of the name recognition factor. People are going to listen to him. Brownback, for example, is a one trick pony. Romney has no chance as a Mormon. Someone has to engage a larger portion of the party, the "big tent", while being more distinguishable from Democrat opponents than some like Guiliani and McCain.

Thompson is actually very similar to a 2000 George W. Bush in his appeal to various factions. GW was better in that he was a Governor. Of course, Thompson is a lot slicker in his presentation. He should do well.

In many respects it will be form over substance as usual. Ron Paul has a lot of substance but I think will be overwhelmed by Thompson's charisma. Politics and entertainment are becoming indistinguishable, because campaigning is all about television. Now we add gaining of blogger support to the mix.

 

[jselvy]

The appearance of credibility is not the thing itself.
All that glitters is not gold

He voted to strip me of fundamental civil rights, thats not credibility nor integrity.

Jefferson

 

[Clipper]

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Fred Thompson since the Ruby Ridge hearings, and when he got out of politics and into acting, I thought we had lost a potential president...I'm glad he's back.

 

[the pistolero]

Now we add gaining of blogger support to the mix.

Speaking of which, I read something earlier this morning that just really ticked me off:

My own support for Fred depends on the extent to which he runs on issues instead of persona. Every candidate has to run on both and he’s had plenty to say in his radio commentaries so I’m not too worried, but if we end up seeing too much of the pick-up truck or hearing too much about whittling or whatever and it turns into a “he looks the part” campaign, I’m going to balk.

I said it on my blog, but I'll say it here too. Considering the above-quoted blogger is a Rudy booster, this makes no sense at all, because Rudy's image is pretty much all he has. Had it not been for Sept. 11, I can't help but think we'd all be saying, "Rudy who?!" or more people would be calling him out for the iron-fisted authoritarian (with disturbing fascistic tendencies) that he is. I like Ron Paul a lot, indeed, but I still can't help but think Fred is our best hope. Between him and Giuliani (and I have a feeling that's who it'll come down to), Fred! is the better candidate, hands-down.

 

[RealGun]

He voted to strip me of fundamental civil rights, thats not credibility nor integrity.

If you are referring to the Patriot Act, all but one Senator (Feingold) voted for it with little debate, a post 9/11 slam dunk (2001). By the time it came under closer scrutiny (2005), Thompson was gone (2003).

Regardless, the Senate's civil liberties protection amendments in 2005 were stripped out in conference. I think I would blame everyone, especially in 2005, for procrastinating and needing a last minute compromise to prevent sunset of the provisions. It's really unfinished business, or so we would hope.

Of all the candidates running, assuming he is one of them, Thompson may be among the least involved in the Patriot Act. We can hold him accountable, but I don't see his involvement as a Senator to be very explicit or unique. ICBW.

 

[GTSteve03]

Monkeyleg:
Sorry I missed your post. Yeah, you folks must really love screwed up liberals bringing their screwed up policies down to your state, and then insisting that those same failed policies will work in the South.

And what policies would those be? Higher taxes, gun bans and illegal alien amnesties sure are real campaign winners down here in the South, let me tell you.

Oh, and I was asking about the 9/11 Commission, I didn't bring up Ron Paul.

RealGun:
Politics and entertainment are becoming indistinguishable, because campaigning is all about television. Now we add gaining of blogger support to the mix.

I think the television support is going to be a lot less fractured than the blog/internet. The talking heads on TV have just a few favorites that they're pushing, whereas the smaller guys have a lot more support online and I'm not sure how much Fred will pick up in that area.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If you are referring to the Patriot Act, all but one Senator (Feingold) voted for it with little debate, a post 9/11 slam dunk (2001). By the time it came under closer scrutiny (2005), Thompson was gone (2003).

When I was in Kindergarten, my teacher told me that just because everyone else did something didn't make it right for me to do it also.

I think for a grown man to try to use an excuse of "everyone else is doing it" is pretty weak.

That said, I still like Fred Thompson ok, but I think he needs to be heavily scrutinized. What I am afraid of is that he will be deemed the most winnable candidate, like George Bush was, and everyone will vote for him without really understanding his views, and then be disappointed when he gets to the White House (as we have been with Bush).

 

[chas_martel]

Fred won't have my vote if he runs as a Republican.

 

[MeekandMild]

Er, let me go back to some of the original discussion. Calling Fred Thompson an actor is sort of like calling Dave Thomas an actor and ignoring Dave's billion dollar food empire. Dave played a guy selling hamburgers...Fred plays a lawyer and investigator.

I would hope that no one would be surprised to learn Thompson has a long and distinguished career as an attorney and as an investigator. He is well respected in the legal community and in the US Senate. He is at least the intellectual and moral equal of any senator presently serving. (Better than most IMHO.)

Thompson was 'found' as an actor when he was inteviewed about his role in bringing Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton (Democrat, btw) to justice for bribery. (Thompson had been the attorney of the woman Marie Ragghianti who refused to play along with Blanton's bribery game, so was fired by the state of Tennessee. Needless to say he won his case.) Director Roger Donaldson liked his voice and appearance so asked him to play himself in the 1985 movie, "Marie".

 

[snuffy]

Fred won't have my vote if he runs as a Republican.

Oh? So who's better, Hitlery? Are you looking for perfection? So am I, but I'm firmly rooted in reality, there will never be a "perfect" man running for president.

If you're just a lib that wants to troll a thread about Fred, (hopefully),running for president, you can be ignored!