Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 12/30/2007 8:16:03 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn, accused some of my colleagues of "journalistic malpractice" just now on Fox News Sunday.
He's referring to coverage implying that Thompson said he's "not particularly interested in running for president," like this story.
As our awesome ABC News off-air reporter with the Thompson campaign advised us last night, and as Jim Geraghty at National Review points out that may not be the fairest characterization of Thompson's complete remarks.
The larger point Thompson seems to have been trying to make is that he's not interested in the process of running for president, but he wants to be president and thinks he'd be a good one.
He also said -- and this isn't new -- that those who have had fire-in-the-belly for the job for the job aren't necessarily the people who should be entrusted with the job.
"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson said. "I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have…"
"I approach it from the standpoint of a deal," he said to a voter who wondered why he should caucus for Thompson, "of kind of a marriage. You know, if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know, it's probably not going to be a very good deal for either one of them.
"But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, the you have the opportunity to do some wonderful things together. I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that if I have the background, the capability and the concern to do this and I'm doing this for the right reasons.
"But I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president. Nowadays, the process has become much more important than I think it used to be."
He went on to say, "if what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United States... someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they've enjoyed every minute of campaigning, I ain't that guy."
He concluded: "I've gone out of my way to be myself, because I don't want anybody to think they're getting something they're not getting. I'm not consumed by this process, I'm not consumed with the notion of being president. I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I've always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job."
That's Fred. Fred is Fred. He has disdain for the process. And I think probably most of us can understand why.
The media has set the template.
“Fred is lazy”
They’ll stick with this until Fred is long gone from the scene.
Hopefully, that’s after he completes his second term
Ping
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Fred Thompson is the only candidate who appeals to instinct. This will have a huge impact on the undecideds.
I really love this guy. Have for years...and I've never even watched his television show. LOL. U.S. Army Retired |
Straight shooter, consistant, honest conservitive. He is what this nation needs.
You know...I haven’t either. I have watched some of his movies, but not the TV show. I work in a law office and don’t find it any form of entertainment when I get home.
FRED THOMPSON is a leader and I can see it so clearly. I would feel perfectly safe with this man as our leader.
| I'm not into police/lawyer shows. That has been too overdone. I am a sci fi fan. Funny thing about that is you'd think I would be a Mitt Romney supporter with that preference. *wink* U.S. Army Retired |
Interviewees A, B, and C get to the interview on time (maybe even 5-10 minutes early), they have all spent the last couple of years preparing for this day. They have their letters of recommendations together, they have saved the money to make glossy resumes, they have made contacts within the company that are ready to vouch for them, and they all showed up to the company to actually ask for the job.
The board gets together and asks them to describe the greatest threats to the company. They each, in their own ways, describe how the international company Al Queda International plans to come in and change all of this Christian companies rules, and fire anyone that doesn't agree with their philosophies. They also go on to tell the board that they also know of an attempt by an insider, Clinton INC, plans to participate with them by just going along with it (they don't want the conflict entailed in overthrowing Al Queda International). A, B, and C describe exactly how they would prevent Clinton Inc from making their attempt at a hostile take over a reality.
Candidate D comes in, also on time, but states straight out that he is the best man for the job, not because of what he knows (which is nothing) but because the company is a Christian company, and the Lord is guiding him to apply.
Finally along comes candidate F. He is running late (although he does try his best to convince the secretary that he is actually on time, that the others were just early). He comes to the interview, after his wife had called and set it up, laid out his clothes to wear, and driven him into town in their old red pickup truck. The secretary finally leads him into the conference room where the board of directors are waiting.
The first question from the board is "why do you want this job?" He states, that he ain't playing those games, and that he really didn't want to be there (at the interview), but a bunch of people on the internet told him that he would do a great job, so he decided to check it out. When asked about how he would do at the job, he says, "I really don't feel like interviewing, so here is a website for you to go look at with all my "policy papers". You can read them (like all those people on the internet did) and see that he is probably the best for the job, and then make their decision. When asked how he would keep Clinton Inc from succeeding in their hostile take over, he says, well uhh...uhm...it's in the papers, read it there.
Candidate D then stands up and says, I am done with this interview, I know you people want me, so wake me up when you make your decision.
In all reality, who would you give the job too?
Point well taken. Rooty Giuliani has the most fire in the belly. Nuff said.
GO FRED GO!!!
Me either! I've seen a couple of his movies tho. I keep saying I'm going to catch an episode of Law and Order but just haven't done so yet.
Unfortunately, the radio station I listen to for Rush hasn't run Paul Harvey in years, so I wasn't aware FDT was filling in, until after he began running.
It really is ok if Mitt is your guy!
It’s the Mark Antony ploy.
Way back at the beginning, before anyone said anything about him, I was wishing Fred Thompson would get in the race. He doesn't seem to me to be someone who has been lusting for power since his earliest years. That's a principal fault of Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. The Presidency defines their being. It was all about them.
I want someone who takes on the mantle reluctantly but who also will be able to make clear for people what the United States was supposed to be about: a land of liberty where the federal government protects the people from foreign enemies and the Constitution protects the people from the federal government, leaving everything else up to the ingenuity, hard work, and voluntary associations of the citizenry.
We have now reached a place where a major party claims there really is no foreign enemy that is not of our own making and that the federal government has to protect the individual from himself. They appear to believe that people will truly be free when the federal government has defined in law the specifics of how every aspect of everyone's life should be and has constructed an enforcement apparatus to make it happen.
The thought that there could be hundreds of millions living whose future rests completely upon their own shoulders and how they choose to provide for themselves and their families either scares or outrages them, depending on whether they believe those people to be either misguided or arrogant. Therefore, they believe that the federal government, with themselves in the driver's seat, should help plan for the fools who can't do it themselves or put in their places the reckless ones who think they can.
They also appear to believe that anyone who opposes them, therefore, are the enemies of the people, and, because they have cast themselves as the voice of the people, enemies of themselves. You're either with them or you're an evil to be extirpated.
How in the world is this any different from the totalist politics of the Nazis or communists?
When I was in high school I read Jefferson's suggestion that a bloody rebellion every so often would be a good thing for the nation. My idea then was that he was saying, "Hey, if this whole Constitutional government idea we came up with doesn't work out, just toss it aside and try something else." I realize now, and I wish that more people did, that he meant, "If a system of government grows up that violates this Constitution and Declaration of Independence and starts to eat up the people's substance and to oppress the people, get rid of it, even if you have to use bloody force the same way we did against King George. You'll be doing it for the same reason. The federal government is not the United States. It's a means to an end and that end is liberty in peace. If the existing one can no longer serve as that means, scrap it and reconstitutionalize."
I'm hoping that Fred will be able to restore a little clarity to the historical perspective. For all those people in the past who yearned to be free, there are even more now, especially since the degree of oppression in the modern world far exceeds anything during the centuries that led to the American Revolution.
This is exactly the attitude we need in our presidential candidates. Even if Thompson were not closest to my policy views, I would still give him a serious look based on this approach alone.
It’s so interesting to me that some folks think this attitude is a negative, and instead want someone with consuming ambition to be president. It’s just a reminder of how much my beliefs differ from some other GOP-ers’. Opinions in this primary have diverged enough that no matter who wins, I don’t see how we’re going to hang together as a party.
Good analysis for open market position search. However, when you are in the business of corporate stealing, you entice the guy or gal with all you got to get them on board. There is no A, B, C, or D. There is only one, and that one will bring in the company profits. We have asked Fred Thompson to take the position of POTUS because WE feel he is the best man for the job at this time in history. He has accepted our request and is doing his level best to fulfill our since of right justness for this country. I not only believe in him, but I believe in our (his supporters) right to Federalism.
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.