[M. Thatcher]

I like Fred; he's an attractive politician with a long history of doing the right thing. I first became aware of him in this book about corrupt Tennessee pols; Thompson is a true hero in that true story.

When he came to the Senate I had very high hopes; in fact, I anticipated him truly nailing the Clintonoids when he ran the 1997 Senate hearings looking into the White House fundraising "coffees."

Unfortunately, the hearings proved a disappointment and Fred's towering presence ultimately, in my opinion, went rather limp as the Clinton gang and their Democrat Protectorate ran circles around him. He was also, as Republicans in DC tend to be, so focused on being "fair" and being seen as such by the media, that his hearings descended into appeasement.

But he is a decent man with good qualities; I would vote for him were he the Republican nominee. However, I personally would prefer someone who will go for the kill.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

I was hoping he would run in 2000

[RavenATB]

"Unfortunately, the hearings proved a disappointment and Fred's towering presence ultimately, in my opinion, went rather limp as the Clinton gang and their Democrat Protectorate ran circles around him."

Never forget the 900 FBI raw data files. If the contest is between Thompson and Clinton, everything Thompson's ever thought about thinking about will become part of the smear campaign.

[Rembrandt]

"But he is a decent man with good qualities; I would vote for him were he the Republican nominee. However, I personally would prefer someone who will go for the kill."
~~~
The "Go for the kill" species seems to missing from the Republican gene pool. Just watch any dust-up btwn Pubs and Rats. The Rats play by a different set of rules and, for some reason, the Pubs just throw their chests out as if to say "bet you can't get this."

Trying to understand this just befuddles me.

[PhilDragoo]

I was impressed with the eight-minute audio excerpt of Fred Thompson's remarks Tuesday on the Libby verdict. He was concise and focused on three points, very reasoned while communicating he was not amused.

I sensed he'd enjoyed as much of Washington as he could stand just watching his expression as John Glenn interrupted time and again.

Were he back in the saddle--this time in the executive branch--he could express himself without the encumberance of senatorial collegiality--and just tell John Glenn to go Cheney himself, though Fred's too much the gentlemen for quite that method.

I would by a dam site rather Fred were the Attorney General than that little weasel Alberto Gonzales--I think the things Fred discussed re Libby would be nearer the outcome than the mess allowed to crop up in the vortex left by Ashcroft's exit.

He's got the kind of new-sheriff-in-town clout that transcends Ronald Reagan--to John Wayne.

Okay, Pilgrim, you caused a lot of trouble out there today, might've got somebody killed, and maybe somebody oughta belt you, but I won't, no, I won't--the Hell I won't!

[joesbucks]

He was also, as Republicans in DC tend to be, so focused on being "fair" and being seen as such by the media, that his hearings descended into appeasement.

So you're saying being far isn't a goal?