I just found one of Fred's negatives.
ping.
There's just not a whole lot to criticise him for so folks are really hard on those baggy eyes of his.
I’m having a real hard time coming up with a second choice to Fred Thompson. Then again, I took heat for suggesting his drafting 14 months ago.
1. He is my favorite candidate on the issues, but he was a Senator, not a Governor, and has little if any executive experience.
2. He, unfortunately looks a little old and a bit sour from time to time which is a huge problem in this age of telegenic candidates.
My 2cents for an honest answer.......
He went a little light on anti-abortion?
Never made the Pro Bowl.
Wait...Fred Thompson or Fred Taylor?
jas3
He’s never governed, or never been Vice President.
Unlike our current President, Dubya.
Or our previous President, Slick.
Or the previous President, Bush Sr.
Or the previous President, Reagan.
Or the previous President, Carter.
Or the previous (elected) President, Nixon.
Or the previous President, Johnson.
It’s been a long time since America elected a non-Governor or a non Vice-President, ever since JFK, and that was 48 years ago. Voters don’t prefer legislators as POTUS.
Of course, this campaign has plenty of current and former Senators running (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Thompson) so it might be time to break that streak.
Also, Fred looks pretty old and sick and he doesn’t appear to be trying to earn support by campaigning as actively as his competition. His supporters are similarly laid back compared to those whacky blimp-flying Ronulans, for example.
I say all this as a Fred supporter, he’s my first choice among all declared candidates, but he needs to win a SuperBowl or something. Or capture OBL or slap Hillary.
he needs to get to the point in his speech.
1. McCain-Feingold. He was considering co-sponsorship, and supported its passage, although he later disavowed parts of it. But he FAILED to recognize the damage to free speech that it represented - not trivial for a Constitutionalist.
2. Failure to support a Human Life Amendment. I do appreciate that overturning Roe v. Wade is a necessary first step, but his insistence that life should be a state issue is misguided. Also, I was very disappointed with his failure to inform himself about the Terry Schiavo case. This was an extraordinary episode in America, triggered by failure of the judicial branch to protect the rights of the severely disabled. The right to life (for the innocent) is either a gift from G_d or a privilege granted by the state - and I once thought that issue was settled.
3. I did disagree with him on Clinton’s perjury, but the real failure there was the impeachment process. As a lawyer, he voted based on the (limited) evidence presented by Starr.
Duncan Hunter is the candidate closest to my views. He has demonstrated his commitment to the Country by his military service, (as has McCain, of course) and has shown firmness of principle, as well as a number of legislative accomplishments that I find compelling. I will support him in the Tennessee primary (if he is still a candidate) but happily support Thompson after Feb. 5 - IF he survives that long (and I believe that he will.)
He loves china and believes that we should be financing projects abroad that help people, as well as his love for John McCain, not to mention that he likes to ask for applause when none is given but his script expects it. But his real negative is that he flip flops.
He has squandered a 30 point lead on Intrade, when he had enviable name recognition that Hunter does not have.
He is pro-life, but he tries to nuance the pro-life position with federalism. No one would nuance a baby-killing position with federalism. He worked for a pro-abortion group. His lack of support for the HLA, plus other quotes show that he attempts to nuance his position to appear centrist.
Posted on 04/11/2007 11:11:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1815999/posts
On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994
Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
Furthermore, this from the American Spectator posted just a few days ago:
In the interview, Thompson was asked: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
Thompson is not an evangelical, having had some kind of fallout with Dobson & saying “I’m not going to dance to your tune”, also he seems to have a Laodicean “I’m OK/You’re OK” spiritual outlook.
Thompson: ‘I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934692/posts
On immigration, Hunter’s criticism of Thompson over this issue is well aimed. We need someone in the white house who isn’t a johnny-come-lately on this issue.
Road to Des Moines Conversions on Immigration (Hunter Press release)
News Which Cannot Lose ^ | 10/25/07 | Duncan Hunter/staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1916889/posts
Thompson is not as strong as Hunter on the WOT. Hunter’s background is military, having won a bronze star in Vietnam, and he’s the ranking member of the house committee on Defense. His name comes up a lot for Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security, but Thompson’s doesn’t.
Thompson supporters are asking Hunterites to care about polls when they obviously don’t care that much about polls, and they’re asking Hucksterites to care about conservatism when it’s obvious that isn’t high on the Huck followers’ radar. Thompson is asking for both camps to care about the things they don’t care about.
Thompson’s promise was that by this time in the race he’d be kicking tootyfruityrudy to the curb, but instead he’s whining about Huckabee and barely beats Ron Paul at Intrade. The bible says something about “to whom much is given, much is required” and the parable of the talents shows that bigger results are expected from those to whom more is given. Thompson was given name recognition and money and the result is dropping polls and losing 30 points at Intrade. Time to give those resources to someone who has been much more frugal with what’s been given to him: Hunter.
I will vote for Thompson if he gets the nomination, but Hunter would make a better president.
Overall, I’d say Fred’s perceived negatives are quite low. I guess that's why the preferred method of choice to attack him is to try to label him lazy or to say he does not want the job.
Strong consistently conservative principles, low negatives, and high believability. Fred is absolutely the best choice.
I just found one of Fred's negatives.