Posted on 03/28/2007 4:01:02 PM PDT by America_Right
Sorry, all you Fredheads out there. I think I may have inadvertantly lost a Thompson supporter. My buddy in Vegas and I communicate during the day via email, and I have a "Fred Thompson For President" picture as my signature. He agreed with me that Thompson was a great candidate and had his support up until today. Then he sends me an email that said:
Seeing your signature at the end of your emails is giving me second thoughts. I am very afraid for a country that has to hire an actor to be president, because no politician can be trusted. At the very least Ross Perrot was a business man. But he was laughed at.
So, I replied with this:
My signature? You need to do more research than that. The acting thing is what I liked about him (at first), because I knew he was a conservative, and since he was a well-known face, he had electability. I was instantly excited about the fact that an electable conservative could run for Prez, and WIN EASILY. Elections are almost completely won on image. Very few voters are well informed (like I am), or even somewhat interested (like you are) in politics. Most voters get all their political info from the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (or similar), and thus remain blissfully ignorant. Anyway, after doing LOTS of reading about him, there isn't anything to hate about him. He is a true conservative, through and through. Those are rare enough in Washington, let alone Hollywood. So, not only is he an electable conservative, he is a REAL conservative. His only negative among conservatives is the fact that he is buddies with McPain, and he helped author the McCain-Feingold bill that restricts the heck out of free speech concerning elections. It totally stomped on the 1st Amendment. Since then, however, Fred has completely recanted his support for the bill. He had no idea that it was going to have the effect that it has had. His sole intention when helping author the bill was to cut back on (or possibly stop) the corruption in Washington and their money-man circles. The man is pure class, and you can't make a (negative) decision based on the fact that he has been an actor. It's a job like any other, just a lot easier and better paying. Long before that, he was involved in Washington politics. He was DEEP in the Watergate case as a lawyer, and has spent 8 years in the Senate. He would have won another term EASILY if he had wanted to run again, but he was fed up with the way the Congress worked, and his daughter was dying, so he gave it up and went into acting full time.
As to the acting, well, the greatest president in the history of our country was Ronald Reagan, and he was an actor. Do you really think that those buttheads in Washington that have made their careers by sucking the government teat are presidential material? Remember what Douglas Adams said about people being allowed to be in power? Only those who don't want it should have it. I believe that. Anyway, there is now a wealth of info on Fred on the Web, so you can do some research on your own if you want. You won't be disappointed if you are a conservative. Trust me. A good place to start would be http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=thompson.
Waiting to see what he says, but if I lost a supporter because of my signature, I will get back on FR and beg for flames...
Bwahahahaha, you need to write jokes for TV. That was funny!
Acting was more important to him than governing, it seems. Will he only serve one term and then go back to Law & Order?
You can't compare ANYONE to Ronladus Magnus. I was merely telling him that you can't discount someone just because they have one type of career. I am a computer tech business owner and I think I would be a better Prez than a lot of the people running this time.
Nothing could be worse than writing jokes for TV, or being a syndicated cartoonist - every day, day in and day out, one has to produce a joke [or a cartoon strip] - and what to do if one is "dry"? Jokes created "to order" could be compared to forced sex - the quality suffers dramatically, and they are no fun at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808364/posts
I wouldn't worry too much- there will soon be a LOT of others willing to take your friend's place:)
You do know, don't you, that Fred Thompson was a lawyer before he was an actor?
And that he got his start in acting playing himself in a story about corruption in politics - he being the DA prosecuting the corrupt (need I say it?) Dimocrats?
Yes, I mentioned that in my email to him. It is in the post! :)
Him: I don’t mean to say anything is wrong with Fred, I mean the whole situation is just so saddening.
Me: Fred being an actor is a big plus in this case. He is the only electable conservative (possibly) running. His acting MAKES him electable in this case. Take heart, my friend. This is as good as it gets for a real conservative.
Ok, so I guess he is upset about having a leader be elected because he has good stage presence. I can understand that. However, I also understand that this is the media age, and that stage presence means more to the general public than experience or ideals.
The first time Perot talked about running, he was not laughed at. Just based on an announcement on Larry King Live, he immediately started polling at better than 40 percent of the public against the entire field of possible candidates, based on a vague commitment similar to Thompson's. There was more buzz than you could possibly imagine. Thompson's test of the waters yielded him 12 percent within the Republican ranks. That is a very big difference.
I haven't seen a very big groundswell for the guy beyond the vocal few supporters here at FR, and a few articles and endorsements out of Tennessee.
Stay tuned...
Hillary still has 900+ FBI Fil
es, and she's still a Senator. RIght? The FBI is showing no interrest in pursueing her. Right? The FBI is openly corrupt then. Right? Mr. Thompson and others can hammer on this incessantly. Right? They should and any that don't are equaly as corrupt. Right?
Me too, and folks stopped taking my checks signed like that. Imagine!
Personally, I hope that in about nine years, we are asking "who is the next Fred Thompson?"
Where have you looked? I see Thompson stories on Fox News all the time. He gets more free publicity than any other Republican candidate! If that isn't a groundswell, I don't know what is. He wouldn't be so heavily covered if something big wasn't happening down here in the trenches.
As to Perot, he was a big business guy in the 80s. The 80s were all about big business. When he started talking about making the country run like a business, he got LOTS of attention. Heck, I was behind him for a while.
It really bothers me that Thompson was a supporter of the unConstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. I'll need to learn more about his positions on issues such as abortion, the 2nd Amendment, illegal immigration and the homosexual agenda before I consider voting for the man.
All of those questions have been answered. Do some research, and you won't be disappointed. He is on our side regarding all of the above (well, he admits that there is no way to get rid of all the illegas, but at least he wants to lock down the border FIRST, then look at dealing with the invaders already here), and has recanted support for McPain/Feingold. No worries. He is our man.
Also, he believes in the system as the framers vision, Working people who serve their government and then return to their normal lives. Not living on the people's dole for life, or is that something you support?
Again, I question that factoid about Fred being buddies with McCain. Senators---politicians in general---and men---and co-workers everywhere---often say that about people they must work closely with. My good friend John, my good friend Fred... Are they?
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.