Posted on 11/28/2007 10:48:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I enjoyed watching Chris Wallace’s recent interview with Fred Thompson — and I share Thompson’s bewilderment at Fox’s nitpicking negativity, so far, about his budding campaign.
In general, I agree with Matthew Dallman’s assessment of Thompson; he feels to me like the most presidential and even-minded of the candidates.
While I could support Giuliani, something about him often strikes me as ... dark and edgy. Maybe I just don’t have enough East Coast in me to take to him right away.
Thompson is the first (and, so far, only) leading candidate reminding us that social security still needs reform, and soon. That shows me he is a man unafraid to deliver important news even though it’s politically unpopular.
Although I disagree with Thompson that abortion constitutes the “taking of a life” in any legally meaningful sense — to me it’s more like taking the life of a fish than of a human — I do agree with him that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that decisions about the legality of various abortion procedures can be made at the local rather than federal level.
My own position is that abortion is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree, with no end in sight. So why should such a truly gray-area subject — I mean, when does human life start for those of us who don’t think it’s at conception? — be subject to such absolute rule at the federal level.
With the possible exception of his position on immigration — seems to me immigration should be fast, easy, and well-documented — I definitely like Thompson’s list of principles.
“Dissolution of the IRS as we know it”? Count me in. “Free market solutions” to problems in the health care industry? Love it.
But what I like best about Thompson is his explicit, repeated, and principled emphasis on the importance of federalism. Ultimately, that’s why I can agree with him on Roe v. Wade while disagreeing with him about abortion.
Federalism is a beautiful thing, and I’m glad to see a major presidential candidate pushing the subject so strongly.
Some of us have been saying for a long time that Fred is the one who can hold the base and pull votes from the middle. People are desperate for a candidate they feel they can trust to be the same after the election. Fred is the one.
I was actually stunned when my moderate/union dem in-laws remarked that they had seen Fred talking about foreign policy on Meet the Press and thought that he made a lot of sense!
I never talk politics with them; they volunteered this out of nowhere. I was so interested that I asked them about the other candidates just to get a handle on their thoughts (I didn’t personally register an opinion one way or another — I wanted to hear what they said). Here’s the nutshell:
Hillary — it would be nice to have a woman as president; it’s time. But just don’t know if she’s the one to fill that role.
Obama — don’t know if he’s trustworthy or experienced enough.
Other dem candidates — not looking for raving leftists in office.
Giuliani — wanted to like him after 9/11. Think he’s acting like a big hypocrite to pander to the right after all those years as a leftist republican.
McCain — kind of like him; think he’s maybe a bit of a loose cannon.
Romney — fake, not even an option they would consider.
All other GOP candidates — not really familiar.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
http://vets4fred.net/youtubedebate-fred.shtml
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
I’ve been saying it for a while.
FRED is the winner we need in 2008.
Fred is the Reagan of our era. I’m not saying this to suggest that he’s in any way a clone of the Gipper, but rather, that he’s the guy that is a consistent conservative but has a way about him that can appeal to the “Reagan Democrats” and lots of moderates and independents, without the base feeling “sold out” or compromised.
No comment on Ron Paul?
I agree, alot of my non-conservative coworkers say that they’d vote for FRed over the Dims cast of misfits.
I’m a Fred supporter but from what I can see he doesn’t have the demeanor of Reagan who came off as more happy. Fred seems to consider this whole thing distasteful and I have to agree...the whole process is demeaning to a serious person concerned about crucial issues. I’m afraid that our dumbed-down you-tube, instant gratification culture is incapable of appreciating someone who isn’t more entertaining i.e. the “pro-life liberal” Huckabee who has told a few jokes and is rising in the polls.
I agree with your consensus. I don’t think Fred’s “unhappy” really. Actually I think he’s quite happy. It’s just who he is and how he is.
Rush is talking about Fred right now! He said all the top tier candidates showed their moderate views except one — Fred Thompson!! Said he’s the only one who stuck to his conservative principles. Thanks Rush!!!
Fred stood out as the only conservative at last night's debate. The rest are moderates or liberals.
Heh heh...
One shot at a time...
Oh this is good!!!!
Oh this is good!!!!
If you actually want to see a conservative agenda advanced in Washington, then Fred Thompson’s your man.
The minds of Dems
I actually think it hurts Fred when this comparison is made. It causes the question to become "Is Fred the next Reagan?" instead of "Would Fred be a good candidate and president?". It's a lot easier to answer the first one yes than it is the second one.
I know what you mean and I explained why I made the comparison.
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.