Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 08/03/2007 7:40:07 PM PDT by Josh Painter
On the Republican side the news this week was all about Fred Thompson... As the only candidate who is acceptable to conservatives, acceptable to moderates, admired by the media and potentially saleable to independents - he knows how to act - he is also the only candidate on the Republican side who can win...
I was of two minds about the whole Rudy thing until last Sunday when I was on a Creative Coalition panel with Ed Rollins, who ran Ronald Reagan's campaigns among about a zillion others, and he reminded me that while it's actually possible that the Republicans could nominate a pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, three marriages-including-one-to-his-cousin-guy, they can't do without inspiring a third (or fourth, depending on Ralph Nader) party challenge that will sweep a considerable portion of the Christian conservative vote, without which the Republican Party might as well be a third party itself.
OK, that was a long sentence but read it again. Rudy gets the nomination. Democrats win. If Bloomberg enters the race, which I don't think he will, then the narrative becomes how much better a mayor he is than Rudy was and Democrats win again.
Do they win if it's Romney? I think so. While he may not inspire a third-party conservative challenge, since it would be really bad manners to announce that the reason you're running against a guy is his religion, the fact is a great many evangelical conservatives in the south do not think Mormons are Christians and hence won't vote for one. Republicans lose again.
What's more, in a YouTube election, the fact that he was a Massachusetts liberal until 15 minutes ago is a real problem, since there are loads of video clips available of him saying things like taxpayers should fund abortions.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk ...
Picky, picky, picky!
“...admired by the media...”
Which media would that be, Eric? The media that attacks Thompson’s wife for nothing more than her good looks? The media that regurgitates the Clintons’ anti-Fred talking points? The media that forgives Rudy his trespasses, but no other GOP candidate need apply?
The LA Times?
The NY Times?
The Boston Globe?
The Indianapolis Red Star?
CNN?
PMSNBC?
I’m just a little confused on this point...
Eric Alterman is an expert on conservative politcs. /s
*Puke*
I think I'll pass on what he thinks, thank you.
Well, we all know that Alterman is third rate - on his best day!
He “reports” that FDT is 67 and of his fellow travelers who commented said he is “over 70”
Fred D. Thompson was born August 19, 1942....still 64 & soon to be 65!
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
With Alterman, it is doubly true that "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
Congressman Billybob
Of course he's a candidate, he campaigns every day. Hillary was a candidate, and everyone knew it, way before she "declared" as a candidate. Why do some people get so high centered because Fred is going to make a tactical decision on when is the best time to officially declare his candidacy? Tied for first place shows that not only is he a candidate but that he is a pretty successful candidate. Don't be confused by form over substance.
Hardcore lefties love this liberal POS.
Fred and his minions give 'pied piper' a new meaning.
Eric Alterman really creeps me out.
How Rudy-esque!
If it's all right with you, I'll think for myself, thank you.
So it had a ring of truth in it for you too?
It is equally sad to see folks like yourself badmouthing conservatives on a conservative website.
Then there’s Rudy’s pedophile-priest friend...
BUST
Once again, the Republican Party is demonstrating how little it understands the leadership vacuum that is plaguing our nation. This time, the craze is over drafting George W. Bush for president in 2000. What began as an effort by the country club, power wing of the Party has now grown to include some factions of issue-oriented conservatives, who have also fallen prey.
The hunger to win the White House in 2000 is so great that many Republicans will accept anyone, just as long as he or she is a “Republican.” Like the sports mentality that has permeated our entire culture, winning in politics has become little more than a temporary gratification with no lasting significance. This drop in standards can be attributed to several things, one of which is the lack of core values among many of the most ardent Party loyalists. Even some of the evangelical Christians of the so-called Religious Right, people who supposedly have a higher commitment to principle than political expediency, have indicated a willingness to follow.
Why am I against joining with other Party members and backing the Bush campaign to capture the White House in 2000? In one simple sentence, George W. Bush, better than any other individual, is an ideal reflection of the Republican Party as it is today. And that is why he should not be taken seriously by anyone committed to principle.
Republicans today, resembling their Democrat opponents, are driven more by the fickle whims of society than by core ideologies. The Republican leadership has not taken a serious stand on any issue since the 1995 budget battle where, ultimately, one concession after another was surrendered to the demands of President Clinton. There was a time when smaller, limited government was the uniting theme in the Republican Party. By their actions in recent years, however, the Republicans have even lost their claim to this principle.
Today, after five years of Republican control of Congress, government has steadily grown larger and become more intrusive. Not a single federal department has been eliminated, downsized, or even had its budget reduced in the slightest, in spite of many campaign promises to the contrary. And Americans suffer even more encroachments upon their liberties as the GOP-led Congress continues to pump steroids into the federal monster with bigger budgets and more federal programs. Today, there is not a single issue on which Republicans can legitimately claim either unity or victory. It should come as no surprise that such a wandering generality has rallied around George W. Bush as the ideal man to be their leader.
One need only examine Bush through his own words to arrive at such a conclusion. Project Vote Smart polls candidates at all levels of government, nationwide, and publishes responses to their comprehensive questionnaire on their web site at www.vote-smart.org. Bush’s 1998 gubernatorial survey reveals a man very much in love with big government and in search of a consistent set of values. (What American president does this sound like?)
In addition to his politically correct responses on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and state funded health care, Bush reveals his true identity when it comes to education. He states, “My number one priority is improving public education.” Yet, when you run down the list, it’s obvious he believes that only government can perform such a feat. He advocates an increase in state funds for teachers and school construction, state-mandated standards (buzz phrase for state-mandated controls), and bilingual education. Nowhere on this survey does he suggest government loosening its stranglehold on this vital industry and allowing the only proven solution, the free market, to reign.
Still, some conservatives are falling all over themselves to line up in support of this man, much like they did in 1996 with the equally bland candidate, Bob Dole. Is this what has become of freedom? Is this our modern day version of “eternal vigilance?” Suppose a giant dragon was threatening our lives and we desperately wanted to arm a knight to go out and slay the dragon. Would we even consider someone who advocates stealing food from our very own tables to keep the dragon alive? Would we be this desperate to “win”? Unfortunately, our situation is not a fairy tale. The dragon is real. Even worse, so is this year’s anointed knight.
Nevertheless, the question always comes back to me: “Yeah, but had you rather have him, or Al Gore?” The assumption is that it’s better to make a little progress under Bush than none at all under Gore. It’s a good question. And it’s a fair question. But it’s an incorrect assumption and ignores the much deeper issue.
We’re all familiar with the phenomenon of boiling a frog in water. Put a frog in cold water and heat it up slowly; the frog will hold still and allow himself to be boiled to death. Heat the water up rapidly and the frog will sense the difference and jump out. This is what happened in 1994. We “jumped out.” The Contract with America, while not the most ideal legislation, was still a successful campaign, due in large part to resistance to the Clinton administration’s sudden, big government policies.
However, since 1995, the water has been heating up slowly. We have tolerated a steady onslaught of big government programs, often at the hands of the Republicans, who we thought were our allies, and few seem to be aware of the bubbles that are breaking the surface all around us.
As long as we continue this distorted logic of “he’s not as bad as the other guy,” we’ll forever maintain the climate that we have now, where liberals and moderates think they have a fighting chance of obtaining the GOP nomination. So far, history proves that they do. This not only applies in the presidential race but all the way down the ticket. The question is not Al Gore or George W. Bush; the question is whether or not we want to continue this trend.
If all we want is a President in the White House with an “R” beside his name, the polls are telling us that any “R” will do, take your pick. If this is our goal, we can be certain that the water temperature will continue to rise taking us closer to that boiling point. If we want someone who stands for something and has a solid belief system, then the choices are fewer. If we want someone who will help us slay the dragon and bring us closer to the Constitutional government for which our Founders fought, then the answer may not be found in the 2000 election. And it may not be found in either of the two monopoly parties.
Posted on 06/13/1999 20:35:29 PDT by vitolins
Is the same scenario developing for 2008.
The above certainly applies to the current front runner Rudy.
I like Fred. He is a better spokesman then G.W. Bush but he does tend to speak in sweeping generalities.
I, once a card carrying member of, and donor to, the Republican party, am now a conservative independent. I want someone to represent me. That person doesn't exist...but maybe he does in FDT or Duncan Hunter.
The election is a L-O-N-G ways away. Same for the primaries. So...as a conservative independent who can't vote in the primaries, I will wait until someone works their way through the process and emerges as the candidate to challenge the dims. At that point, I will do all I can to make sure that Hitlery is defeated.
But...I'd sure like to vote for someone.
If pointing out perceived mistakes and questioning motives are your idea of “badmouthing”. then perhaps debating politics isn’t your cup of tea.
For so long, you insisted on calling him the Tennessee “stud,” now suddenly you’ve switched to “dud.”
Please show some dignity by concealing your disappointment. Did you not know he would spurn your manlove advances?
Even sadder is to see some Republicans supporting a democrat!
The major flaw in the is statement is Fred is not a candidate!
Picky, picky, picky!
The major flaw is NEVER LISTEN TO ANYTHING IN THE GUARDIAN!!!
I lived in London for years and the Guardian is an infuriating left wing socialist bunch of anti American psychos...
Yes, it is. But, there is a vacuum that needs to be filled. The so-called Republicans currently in office are mostly idiots who are willing to ignore their base to court a sement of the population who will NEVER vote for them nor say nice things about them.
We put them in office and then they pee on us. Now they are in the minority and we, the peeing voters, are somehow responsible for the dims being in power. I wonder if they noticed how pissed we were about the illegal immigration amnesty BS they tried to pull. Probably not.
It's so simple. Be conservative and vote conservative and all will be fine. Act conservative to get elected then do whatever you damn well please? All hell will break loose.
Will it take another Clinton presidency for the RINOs to get it??? Sure looks like it.
At this point, I agree with you in spirit and philosophy. Unfortunately, at this time, Duncan Hunter is off the radar. Maybe, just maybe, he will emerge during the primaries.
Says who? You? Try to keep up, undeclared candidates have long been a part of U.S. politics. Google "undeclared candidate" and you'll get 480,000 hits.
He isn't tied with anybody because he hasn't formally declared
Maybe you should tell Rasmussen about this, I'm sure they would change the results of their polls.
So far Thompson has been all form and no substance.
Oh, now I get it. It's not that Thompson hasn't announced that bugs you, it's that you don't support Fred. Maybe he's cutting into the support of the candidate you're backing?
Fred's a candidate and he will be the Republican nominee. If you don't like it, get out of the way to avoid tread marks.
But...I'd sure like to vote for someone.
www.ronpaul2008.com
After his latest hires.... I am no longer looking at him as a conservative. And when his ACU record is LESS than Bill Frist’s? Nope. In 7 days, I along with about 20 others I know from school and work will be voting for Tom Tancredo.
Yep. I made up my mind at last... He ain’t perfect.. there isn’t a Reagan in the lot of them all... But I can’t support or even trust half of them for one major problem or another.
Fred IMHO is about 10% to the right of The other big 3 Liberals... and so sorry Fred... After the miserable betrayal that is W Bush... I am just NOT going that route ever again.
Saying that conservatives are sad for supporting a conservative candidate is not my idea of debating politics.
Saying that conservatives are sad for supporting a conservative candidate is not my idea of debating politics.
Or anticipated candidate, in the case of FDT.
It takes more than wishes. It takes Americans willing to commit their time and money for the betterment of our nation.
If everyone who said, "Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate, but he just can't win" would donate $10 to his campaign, maybe together we could change the status quo that we are currently stuck with.
http://www.gohunter08.com/
“The major flaw in the is statement is Fred is not a candidate!”
We got you the 286 times you already said this, but keep on reminding us. By the way, how’s Congressman Hunter’s poll numbers these days? Has he broken through to 2% yet?
Do you think Fred is the best choice, or do you think that "he is he the best choice we have that you think can win?"
Indeed it is sad...
For the others...
You so sirry...
You still make me raff...
(yawn)
The Ballad of Willard Romney
1 Born in a hospital in Michigan
he wants you to believe that he’s for guns
he was for the Brady Bill in ‘94
now it’s the NRA that he says he for
Willard, Willard Romney, king of the flip floppers!
2 Willard hired Jay Garrity, who liked to play cop
but that turned out to be a terrible flop
had a badge and a car with cop radios
but he had to resign, so off he goes
Willard, Willard Romney, king of the panderers!
3 He’s writin’ checks to his own campaign
the only way he can stay ahead of McCain
he said he was pro-choice in 2002
but now that foot wears a different shoe
Willard, Willard Romney, opportunist extraodinaire!
4 Mitt said only English should be spoken here
but five days later he turned to the rear
when he ran him an ad in Espanol
looks like he dug himself another hole
Willard, Willard Romney, king of the hypocrites!
5 He gave Massachusetts Romney Care
a whole new bureaucracy for the folks up there
smaller government just ain’t Mitt’s way
yet he said he was a Federalist the other day
Willard, Willard Romney, you can’t trust a thing he says!
Oh, just stop, it’s like screaming at the wind.
It will be soon enough, as soon as L&O is done with EOS reruns.
Then you can go neener neener neener with me...
Just go with the idea we are “stoopid” and be done with it, you’ll rest better...
The only accomplishment the Tennessee Dud has to his name is McCain-Feingold. That means he is one of only two candidates running for for president from either party who has successfully led an attack on our Constitutional freedoms.
The other candidate is his hero and mentor, John McCain.
Is that why Fred appeals to you?
>>>
It is equally sad to see folks like yourself badmouthing conservatives on a conservative website.<<<
People do it to Romney all of the time—you being a case in point, if I’m not mistaken. Tancredo gets attacked pretty regularly (the one trick pony line), though I dare you to find something he’s supported that isn’t conservative.
But I think he makes a good point concerning Thompson. Why is there so much hype around a man who has openly said that he “has never had a desire to be President?” I hear the line that this is exactly what we should want, but I call total bullcrap to that notion. I want someone who go to the mat for a cause. I’ve seen nothing of that sort from Thompson—not when he was representing me as a Senator in Tennesee, either.
I like Fred Thompson in many ways. I see him as the second most viable candidate should he enter this race. But right now, he isn’t a viable candidate because he hasn’t entered the race. And I consider it more than a bit shady that a man is running a stealth campaign and hiding from the campaign finance laws he helped run through the Senate a few short years ago. Nearly 25% of his campaign funds raised in June came from one dinner in Nashville a few weeks ago—and not a single one of those donors was hampered by McCain-Feingold.
I also don’t get the hype behind a DC lobbyist, a trial lawyer, a Hollywood insider, and a US Senator. But all of that said and done, I could like Thompson. Maybe. If he’d ever come out and say where he even stands on the issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.