Posted on 01/02/2008 7:10:14 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
Other than the standard; No fire in the belly, he got in too late, and the evil membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, what are his negatives?
For the record, I am a Fred Thompson supporter.
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.......
I appreciate the response.
That's a whole lot better than the normal FR flaming. I swear, we're going to strip each of our candidates of their dignity here and their capacity to run. Too many want their candidate or they are going to take their ball and go home. It's a damn shame and damages our cause greatly.
I really like Fred, I am hoping his surge comes through. He would be great in good debates with one or two others. He seems to have a good grasp and great conservative instincts in those kind of forums.
He went a little light on anti-abortion?
Never made the Pro Bowl.
Wait...Fred Thompson or Fred Taylor?
jas3
My pleasure.
I am looking to the rest of FR to see an honest appraisal of Fred Thompson.
I am hard pressed to see negatives of him, when compared to the other candidates. (Republican or Democrat)
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.
I understand he represented a client (or advised the attorney that did) But, could you expand? I am truly not that familiar with the issue.
:0)
Of all the Senators or former Senators, he has the best chance of breaking that streak. IMO.
he needs to get to the point in his speech.
He thinks the states should solve the gay problem and is not pro gay marriage at all.
China trade? Get serious.
He seems to be the only candidate willing to oppose the global warming crap.
Please get real and stop the hyperbole.
I would say that is a plus to the others.
He explains his positions with real solutions instead of soundbites.
Some quotes from wiki (they seem to be fair to him...)
Thompson describes himself as pro-life,[20] and says the legality of abortion in the United States should be determined at the state level, in accordance with his federalist viewpoint. During an interview in 2007, Thompson said:
I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway. I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this...to criminalize a young woman....[21]
As a policy matter, Thompson is against criminalizing young women, but says that authorities "can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned."[22]
His position seems to be somewhat "moderately pro-life" or "realistically pro-life." In other words, we should try to change the opinion in the country before we attempt to change laws. This is something of a cop out. Many laws are passed before there is overwhelming consensus on them. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities from the majority. This seems to me to be a case where innocents should have the protection of the federal government. He thinks doctors should be punished but women should not. Again, this is a measured position.
My position would be the "agressively pro-life" one. His is not.
Nope. That’s total BS. He’s against the republican abortion platform. Russert asked him flat out if he supported the republican platform on abortion and he said no. That’s why he lost the Christian Right vote to Huckabee. His position on gay marriage is the same as John McCain’s. It’s the same position John Kerry ran on in ‘04. Fred’s not losing because his positions are just too substantive for stupid conservative to figure out. He’s losing because his positions are wrong.
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.