Posted on 03/10/2007 1:47:33 PM PST by Josh Painter
(I am unaware about the Burglar stuff. Tell me more about that if you can)
I admire and respect Newt. He was magnificent for a short time in the 90s. I just cannot see him as the political leader of the Republican party. The intellectual leader? perhaps.
Conservatives (republicans) need a man (any women out there?) who can excite and re-energize the soul of America...the masses...the average American who tries to keep heart and soul together. Who fights our wars. Who cares not for Sunday morning politics on TV. Reagan was able to do that. There are other Reagans out there. Maybe Thompson has the right stuff the gumption and the street smarts to mobilize the conservative troops. I think he does.
McCain tried but does not. Rudy does not. Romney does not.
Craig Livingston
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that he can do that.
Thompson is OK, but still I have to ask - what state could he win, that Gore and Kerry won in 2000/2004. any of them? We can run Thompson, obviously the base would like him more, but it we do - I think we have the exact same electoral strategy as we did in 2000 and 2004. Which means Thompson has to win Ohio, or he loses.
If he only was one.
Fred is a moderate liberal Republican, in the mold of his friends and closest political allies John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander.
Also, Thompson married a 35-year-old major babe just five years ago. Ol' Fred is probably still pretty frisky, LOL. As an issue, fugedabowdit. I grew up in NC watching Jesse Helms on WRAL, which one minute spot vanished when he first ran. Reagan gave us a little over a year free from "Bedtime for Bonzo" reruns, and Pat Buchannan gave up a lucrative radio show in '96. Been there, done that, not a big deal.
I agree with Thompson's votes about 85% of the time.
As Reagan said, "An eighty percent friend is not a 20 percent enemy."
Therefore, Thompson qualifies as an ally, not an enemy.
Interesting...
Check out my new tagline. It's in honor of Horatio's hometown and my possible trip there on Sunday. Monday and Tuesday were a big disappointment
Well, he's certainly no friend of the First Amendment.
And, his views on abortion, borders and number of other important issues are largely unvetted. I think the percentage you've arrived at is largely wishful thinking.
A sickly Blue Tick hound would look more presidential than Clinton.
Not that appearance is a good measure of a man, but in his case it was. Somehow he reminded me of a side show barker in a two-bit carnival.
The Sandy Berger affair.. google it or research it here at Free republic..
Not as afraid as the Rudybots will be if Thompson gets into the primary race. I think the only reason some of them are touting Rudy so hot and heavy is because they don't see a viable conservative candidate on the menu, but Thompson would fill that vacancy very nicely if he announces.
If he gets into the race he has my vote unless I learn something unsavory about him that I didn't know when he was a Senator from my nearby neighbor state of TN. As best I remember his terms in the Senate, he was a pretty solid conservative on most important issues.
Not to mention Alan Keyes and Lynne Cheney. And Al Franken. I'm sure there are many other people who left their broadcasting careers to run for office. It's not a campaign issue, but if NBC has a solid suit for breach of contract, it could give Thompson several million reasons not to run.
Bill Clinton had a legal defense fund, and if memory serves, it paid not just his legal fees but his fines. DeLay had one. I don't think the government has a lot to say about any donations folks want to make to a worthy person, group or cause, though they can decide whether the donations are tax-deductible or not, and they can shut down "charities" that launder drug or Mob money or fund terrorism.
It's a complicated question. On the one hand, Thompson has a legal obligation that could prevent him from running for president. NBC has a legitimate case; if Thompson violates his contract and thus costs them millions, they're owed compensation. If a group of donors wants to remove that impediment, because they think he should be president, why not?
On the other hand, such a fund would be a way folks could do a very large favor for a presidential candidate, possibly expecting large factors in return, outside the limits and disclosure requirements of campaign finance. Both Clinton's and Bush's presidential library funds have been eyeballed as possible means of, not to put too fine a point on it, laundering a bribe.
nopardons wrote: "Since it is doubtful that Thompson can raise the needed funds, a McCain hookup is more than probable."
Actually, some of the same people who are urging Thompson to run are major GOP fundraisers. Nice try, though...
I believe, and HAVE believed for a year now, that Fred Thompson is the ONLY viable Republican, that can:
A) UNITE the Party under a single banner...
B) Deliver our "Message" in a way that gets through to the Sheeple...
C) Can raise the funds needed to mount an effective campaign...
D) Make Hillary/Obama look like raging, incompetent children in a political debate...
editor-surveyor wrote: "You simply don't understand Beckell's function, or motivation."
And you simply don't understand what a moron the man is. He paid a hooker by writing a check. This is not the kind of stategic mind that can dupe the political opposition into doing his will. And he did a real bang-up job as Mondale's campaign manager in 1984, doncha think?
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.