Go to his website and let him have it. Oh, and post em here too.
Good luck.
Here’s your chance to shine. Mitt has tossed down the gauntlet.
An exercise in futility. Your asking Fred Thompson supporters to justify their support on the theory if they can’t point to some subjective reason they should not be supporting him. Lets come from the other direction Mitt Romney has pretty much the same qualifications as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. What should we make of that? Nothing of course. Fred Thompson strikes me as a leader and brings conservative credentials that are more solid than the other candidates. I have nothing negative to say about Mitt Romney and would vote for him if he is nominated but he’s been on the campaign trail from the get go and is still a distant third.
he is the most conservative candidate who is ELECTABLE. but you knew that : )
Maybe you should send him reasons why Duncan Hunter is the superior leader!
Good Luck!
Mitt Romney saved the Olympics. Fred did not.
Fred T voted for McCain-Feingold and now runs and hides. Romney is out there boldly working his tail off on the campaign trail.
So far there are zero detailed responses from the Fredheads on why Ft is worthy.
I’ll offer one. He’s well known from appearing in movies like Die Hard 2 and as a regular character on LA Law. Counts for something in tems of name recognition.
As for the rest of his record and career......
Like it or not, for 75% of the population, a presidential race is nothing more than the biggest American Idol contest. People go with name recognition, the most recognizable, or someone that appeals to the 'pop culture' mentality.
Why does Rudy have such a strong lead among conservatives even though we here know he is a RINO of the tenth order? It is because people recognize him and relate him to leadership.
Duncan Hunter is a great conservative, but he is a preach to the choir candidate. Think about this, if Duncan Hunter is supported by 15% of Freepers, and we are some of the most informed people based on the issues, what does that translate into the real world recognition and support (less than 1% based on most polls.)
No matter how many Freepers are flipped, that does not make a national movement. I hate to say it, but we are the extreme exception, not the rule.
So what do conservatives do? We could dump a lot of money in the race, like Romney, but you can see the more he puts in, the lower his ratings go. Heck, in most polls, he is below McCain.
What conservatives have wanted is someone with the presence and wide appeal (pop culture appeal) as Rudy but with conservative credentials. We believe we have found that with Fred.
Fred may not be the poster child for 100% conservatism, but I hate to say it, no one is, not even Hunter. What he brings is a marketability that can not only bring conservatives together (so we don't split our votes up among second tier conservatives and hand the nomination over to Rudy) but he is someone who can smack down Hilldog when the general comes around.
If you want to move to issues and accomplishments too, I can, but I see that others are hitting that....
You've got to be kidding!
Here’s my post on their site:
Why Fred instead of Mitt?
Unlike Mitt, Fred is a conservative.
Unlike Mitt, Fred opposes gay marriage.
Unlike Mitt, Fred answers his detractors quickly and sharply, taking no prisoners.
Unlike Mitt, Fred has lots of Washington experience.
Unlike Mitt, Fred has never supported abortion.
Unlike Mitt, Fred has mastered the internet as a tool for reaching voters. His political blogs are frequent and inspiring. Mitt seems to limit himself to politically correct press releases and speeches that have been homogenized by advisers so as not to offend anyone.
Unlike Mitt, Fred doesn’t have to spend $100 for a haircut.
Unlike Mitt, Fred isn’t from Massachusetts.
Fred’s TV presence is much better than Mitt’s. If there’s anything we should have learned during the Bush administration, it is that TV presence is critical.
Fred has the debating skills to eat Hillary alive. Mitt is way too mild mannered to deal properly with the shrew.
Fred is a strong supporter of real border security. I haven’t heard Mitt say much in this area.
One of my major problems with Mitt is that he is bland. Everything he says and does is bland. Bland is not what we need in the face of rude, shrill Democrats.
Mitt is a good guy, but he’s currently third on my list, behind Fred and Duncan Hunter. Thompson/Watts is my dream ticket. Thompson/Romney might be a winner as well.
In my mind it is more important that the candidate has a solid commitment to the right vision than he has tangible accomplishments. Bill Clinton was both a former Governor and a setting President in 1996. Does that mean we should have supported him? Given two candidates with the same vision and ability to communicate that vision to the general public, I would then look at such things as prior executive experience.
The two most important skills any leader can have are a solid vision and the ability to sell people on that vision so they will follow. A visionary leader who can get people to follow can always delegate managerial tasks to a subordinate. On the other hand, one can never be a leader if one can not convince people to follow.
He’s a small government conservative, without being nuts.
We all know how that tuned out.
...just another nobody from nowhere....
He knows Washington, he knows what the system is like. For a change, we need an insider to run for President, not an outsider who'll promise the same old "I'll clean up Washington!" BS but won't do a thing (See Bush's "uniter not a divider and New Tone as shining examples).
Romney is nothing more than a moral Bill Clinton.
From http://www.imwithfred.com/About.aspx:
“During his time in the Senate, Thompson focused on three key areas: lowering our taxes, strengthening national security, and what the American-Statesman called “the unglamorous work of trying to expose waste” and to change the federal government. All have taken on even greater importance today than they had back then. In each of these areas, Thompson accomplished a great deal.
Reforms
>As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Thompson enacted a law that required federal agencies to calculate and report the cost of regulations on taxpayers and businesses.
>Press reports stated: “He put heat on federal agencies by holding hearings on mismanagement and by asking them to tote up the improper payments they made each year.” That added up to about $20 billion in taxpayer dollars. His efforts saved taxpayers more than $2 billion in 2005-06 along at the the Department of Health and Human Services.
>He published a two volume report, “Government on the Brink,” detailing the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal agencies as well as the management challenges facing the incoming Bush Administration. Paul Light, a New York University professor and leading expert on government, said, “I consider him to be one of the most dedicated overseers of the executive branch of the last 25 years.”
>Twenty-five years after he’d gained national prominence as hard-charging counsel on the Watergate committee, Thompson again stepped into the investigation spotlight. In 1997, as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened an investigation into attempts by the Chinese government to influence America policies and elections through, among other means, financing election campaigns. The investigation identified at least six Democrat donors and fundraisers, with ties to the Clinton Administration, who had laundered or aided in the laundering and distribution of foreign money into Democrat political party coffers. The investigation also exposed two Democrat Party donors with “a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency,” according to the Senate committee’s report.
Taxes
>In his eight years, Thompson, who served on the Finance Committee, supported and worked to enact three major tax-cut bills, reducing the federal tax burden on all of us.
National Security
>As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Thompson focused on the threat of nuclear proliferation and technology transfers that could damage American industrial and national security.
>While a vocal supporter of free trade, Thompson has also fought to link free trade to our national security interests. For example, when voting to grant full-trading status to China, Senator Thompson fought unsuccessfully to include an amendment in the bill that would have required the president to impose sanctions against China if it violated nuclear-nonproliferation agreements.
>Thompson also served on the Intelligence Committee at a time when it examined the failings in intelligence and analysis leading into the September 11th terrorist attacks, as well as the reforms needed to better prepare for future threats.
Fred recognized early that Hillary was not worthy of being noticed [from his book At This Point In Time]. Hillary’s name is not mentioned although most of the staffers are mentioned. That makes him intelligent and astute.
Fred treats his wives with great respect [from At This Point In Time] and from interviews that mention Jeri.
Fred is prolife and has been as long as I have been. Fred votes by his principles [Federalism, prolife, limited government].
Fred has done extensive work on limiting the size of government.[committee reports on OCLC] His article on civil service [relating to limited government].
Fred’s work on fighting corruption [Watergate as found in At This Point In Time, Marie Ragghianti and governor Blanton as found in Marie by Peter Maas, case of Cpl. Lance Fielder as found on OCLC].
Fred’s resume listing the bills he has worked on. [Thomas.gov, Sturm Rugers website]
Fred’s work on foreign relations and nuclear proliferation.
Fred’s writings show intelligence, organization, thoughtfulness and his character. He watches what he says about others and thinks about what he says. Most evident in At This Point In Time.
People who know him well recommend Fred highly.
Fred knows a lot about Hillary that he hasn’t talked about yet.
Fred’s ethics and character as spoken about by people who know him well [Lance Fielder’s family, Marie Ragghianti, Sarah Lindsey, friends from his hometown, etc]. You can tell by this book.
I trust Fred’s judgment [from reading his commentaries, his book, from Marie by Peter Maas].
Fred has a longer history to track and to go by than some of the other candidates. Gives you more to rate.
Fred’s work at getting John Roberts through the Senate.
I could go on, but I have other things to do.
But since you’re the one who posted this. let’s look at Duncan Hunter’s record. What in Hunter’s record shows him to be a fiscal conservative who will constrain the growth of government? What has Hunter ever accomplished in his life except feeding at the federal trough as a career congressman?
Why are all of the Fred Haters/Duncan supporters just bitter old Buchanan Brigadiers who still haven’t gotten over 1996?