You left out the most important of all, the breck girl, Edwards, can anyone imaging Fred Thompson spending the time on his hair that Edwards does?
Series!
Fred is the man!
Posted on 03/16/2007 1:42:16 PM PDT by STARWISE
Last week I spent about an hour asking my Republican colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives what they thought about the possibility of former Sen. Fred Thompson running for President.
What happened then was the political equivalent of March Madness with over 40 Members of Congress immediately signing up to either meet with Fred or outright volunteering to help.
When I spoke with Senator Thompson this week, I told him it was like someone set off fireworks on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
There are many reasons Fred should run for President and they have nothing to do with anyone else currently running from either party. So here we go:
1. He personifies strength and trust - the two primary characteristics people look for in a President.
2. He is a natural leader - let's face it. Some politicians are but most are not.
3. He is a consistent conservative - from national security and second amendment rights to the sanctity of life and traditional marriage, Fred is a strong conservative.
4. He has charisma - in the Senate they call it "gravitas." At home it's just plain old confidence. Fred knows who he is, where he came from and where we, as a nation, should go together.
5. He has plenty of experience - not a career politician, but from cleaning up government corruption to chairing select committees on Chinese missile technology, Fred Thompson has the right amount of experience.
6. He is highly electable - Fred Thompson has always been likeable. From the movie set to the Senate floor, he is just "good ol' Fred" to everyone he comes in contact with.
7. He has "star quality" - let's face it, we are at the height of the information age. The media overdoes it so someone who is media friendly and has some celebrity is advantaged.
8. He has a great sense of humor - during the difficult times in which we live, we need a touch of humor. Fred is serious minded but does not take himself too seriously.
9. He is comfortable in his own skin - What you see is what you get. Fred Thompson is the real deal and it shows.
10. He is a Tennessean - perhaps the biggest plus of all and sorry y'all...you have to be one to really understand.
If you feel as I do, let Fred know it. I think he is the closest thing to Ronald Reagan we have seen in a long time.
Zach Wamp Member of Congress
Sorry I didn't note your tongue in your cheek.
Some of the arguments I see on FR against certain GOP candidates are so absurd (Things like, "In 1968, he said Jane Fonda was cute... I could never vote for someone like that."), that I was unable to tell the difference. My bad.
I'm sorry...you don't seem terribly interested in accuracy with your statements, so it's a bit difficult to converse with you.
Accuracy here you go:
“I’ve said that I’ll uphold a woman’s right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal,” Giuliani told talk show host Phil Donahue during his first run for mayor in 1989.
“If the ultimate choice of the woman — my daughter or any other woman — would be that in this particular circumstance to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it,” he added.
Giuliani went even further a decade later, when he voiced support for partial-birth abortion, a practice that is opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Asked on CNN whether he supported a ban on the procedure, he replied: “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.”
"No I have not supported that ( a ban on partial birth abortion) and I don't see my position changing"
Early you will note he said
"I'd give my daughter the money to pay for it"
You seem not to be interested in what exactly Mr. Guiliani stands for...unsurprising really.
No doubt the Dems are poring over Fred's divorce papers at this very moment.
I'm Catholic, and sure I'd prefer St. Fred to Fred, but one ancient divorce doesn't bother me a great deal, unless there's something stinky in the divorce papers.
Afaik, divorce is permitted in the Protestant faith.
If Fred dated women while single, that doesn't seem so outrageous.
Aside from the CFR involvement, I see nothing to dislike in a FT candidacy, and much to celebrate.
However. State politics is different from national. When he was campaigning in Tennessee, he was not the target of the MSM as he would be if he ran for POTUS.
We know they can manufacture a scandal out of thin air and the cleanest laundry on the line. We need to know a lot more than we do right now.
Do you know this for a fact? It is usually the case that when a young husband is going through law school, his wife is working hard and helping, but if you know for sure, we'd all love to hear your authority.
As for "leaving wife with 3 children," do you know for sure his wife got custody? Do you know for sure they were children? If it's true Fred married at 17 (year 1960), and divorced in 1985, we are looking at around 25 years of marriage. Time enough for the children to mature and leave, generally speaking.
Who couldn't carry his own state in 2000.;)~
Well, to be fair, Al Gore did carry the District of Columbia, his birthplace, in 2000.
I wouldn't put Mitt and McCain together--Mitt has been married only once. McCain's first wife worked hard to raise public awareness of the prisoner-of-war issue while he was in prison in Hanoi, but when he came home he divorced her and married a much younger and wealthier woman. I say that as someone who doesn't want either of the M&M's to be the nominee.
Please add me to the list!
That sounds like common sense. Oh dear, he may not have a chance if he brings common sense into it.
Run Fred!
Graymatter wrote: "As for "leaving wife with 3 children," do you know for sure his wife got custody? Do you know for sure they were children? If it's true Fred married at 17 (year 1960), and divorced in 1985, we are looking at around 25 years of marriage. Time enough for the children to mature and leave, generally speaking."
It's true that they were married when Fred was just 17. That is confirmed by a John Fund interview with Thompson posted today on the WSJ's Opinion Journal website, in which we also learn that the divorce was amicable.
Fund asked FDT about his reputation for being a ladies' man as a bachelor senator in Washington in the 1990s. "I plead guilty," he replied. "But everyone I knew is still a friend, and if somehow they aren't I guess we'd hear about it. I'm happy with my life partner and children now."
FDT spoke frankly about his daughter's suicide (she was terminally ill and overdosed) and marriage to his wife Jeri (they have two young children), he said, "Within the space of a year and a half, I experienced the ultimate tragedy and the ultimate happiness," Thompson reflects. "I count my blessings, and I have a real focused sense of purpose now."
Personalities? Is that the difference between Thompson and McCain?
I doubt Fred Thompson would agree with your attack on his good friend's character. After all, McCain is what Thompson considers presidential material. Would you question Thompson's judgment on that?
IMO, your posts are now quite predictable and boringly repetitive and redundant. I'm sure, however, that you may be obsessed, so .. carry on.
Of course they are predictable. I am far from enthused about giving the McCain wing of the party any power.
Since you appear to have no problem handing the presidency over to them, feel free to ignore my posts.
Your observations are strangely misplaced. I have no problem with Rudy or Thompson's pasts. The reference to a checkered past is from the frame of reference of some of the folks who criticize Rudy, that's all. They find Rudy getting divorced unsettling, and yet don't find Thompson's divorce unsettling at all. That's the point, I think.
I'm not afraid at all of a Thompson candidacy. I think he is a good guy. I just don't think he has what it takes to be on top of a ticket, and is better suited for the VP slot for a Rudy or a Romney.
Sorry this wasn't clear to you.
My point is clear - that in many instances on FR, when it comes to Rudy the facts just don't matter. For instance, we don't know if his second wife was a witch and he just couldn't stand her anymore, and we don't know who initiated what as their marriage dissolved. Those trashing Rudy over the divorce couldn't care less about the details. In contrast, I posted a few verifiable facts about Fred (which all of you can google), and I get questions about not knowing the details of his divorce and who started what.
Fred and Sarah Lindsey were married on September 12, 1959 and were divorced in 1985. Whether she initiated the divorce or not, and weather she was the bad person or not, is irrelevant. This is also true in Rudy's case, though many of the Rudy haters lambaste him for getting divorced. The Thompsons divorced in 1985, the same year of Fred's movie career took off, and also his wife worked hard to support him with his law school education. So folks shouldn't be quick to protest with don't “sling dirt on the character of a very good man” level before you do your own research.
“He received his B.S. from Memphis State University, then went on to Vanderbilt University Law School--a great place for a son of the rural South to forge bonds with the state's up-and-comers. (Al Gore and former Sen. Jim Sasser are both Vanderbilt Law arums.) Fred and his wife, Sarah (from whom he was divorced in 1985), both worked to put Thompson through Vanderbilt and support their three kids.” link
Fred is a good man - I never said he isn't, and I agree that he doesn't carry the same baggage as Rudy in terms of divorces and public scrutiny, but he isn't perfect when it comes to divorce and marriages. That was my point.
This is another example of exactly why I posted about Thompson, because Rudy is not only the recipient of exaggerations about his background but also outright lies. Rudy is divorced twice, if you want to consider his first marriage annulment as a divorce. But by any standard, he has had two marriages break up, NOT three.
You are correct he has had two divorces and is currently living with his girlfriend, the former aid, who he cheated on Donna Hanover with..
There, is that better?
>>So here is my question – are divorced Protestants above criticism when it comes to
>>fooling around for over 15 years without marrying any of his/her lovers? Or are the
>>Catholics the only ones who get censured for marrying his/her lover instead of
>>continuing to fool around with a string of women/men for over 15 years?
Interesting questions if for nothing else the bias shown by the phrasing of the question. The honest question would be why are Catholics excoriated for divorce when Protestants are not?
Easy, Catholics are EXTREMELY opposed to divorce (you will be excommunicated for it) so it smacks of hypocrisy when they get one. While protestants merely frown on divorce as a “Bad thing” that they all hope will not happen to them.
It boils down to holding people to the standards they publicly embrace.
As for fooling around, A) he was not married. B) how do you know? I am certain Fred did not tell. C) are there any complaints? D) Get a life. (ask a specious question, get …)
Just to give you a perspective on my Bias (we all have one, some of us just don’t know it.) I am a Mormon who would rather vote for Fred Thompson than Mitt Romney. I will however vote for almost anyone opposite of Hitlery. (Mormons are not Protestants, and not Catholics but we are Christians, and for the “Anti’s” who will show up shortly claiming we are not, Spare me, you aren’t Jesus, you don’t know our hearts.)
You may now consider yourself a FRedhead. :)
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.