Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thompson Is for Real (Run, Fred, RUN!)
The Washington Post ^ | 04/02/07 | Robert D. Novak

Posted on 04/01/2007 9:13:44 PM PDT by SE Mom

In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles because he is filling the conservative void in the field.

Republican activists have complained for months that none of the Big Three -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney-- fits the conservative model of a conservative leader for a conservative party. The party faithful have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan. But in conversations with them the past year, nobody mentioned Thompson as the messiah until he appeared March 11 on "Fox News Sunday."

Thompson was surprised by the reaction to his statement that he was "giving some thought" to running. In the first Gallup Poll that listed Thompson (conducted March 23-25), he scored 12 percent -- amazing for someone out of public life for more than four years who has not campaigned. More important is his backing within the political community. Buyer's remorse is expressed by several House members who endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fred; frednottommy; fredthompson; novak; thompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 next last
To: deaconjim

If you believe that, then you can prove it to me by voting for Hillary if at election time it’s her and Rudy on the ballot.


221 posted on 04/02/2007 7:20:05 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

He didn’t aswer the question, did he?


222 posted on 04/02/2007 7:22:22 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Thanks...most of the time people tell me that makes me pro-choice. I can not make them understand.

I had 3 children and would have taken 3 more when they grew up and were out of the nest!

Today that group would have been “on their own” too. It is my loss.


223 posted on 04/02/2007 7:27:54 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Stayfree
Choose to be a sleaze with your wife, guess what, middle America doesn't agree,

Absolutely. There's no way in hell America will ever elect Bill Clinton president.

224 posted on 04/02/2007 7:33:10 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

I won’t vote for either one of them, and you can count on that.


225 posted on 04/02/2007 7:54:18 PM PDT by deaconjim (Because He lives...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: deaconjim

Counting is not an attribute that anyone will have to equate you with at that point.

P.S. If you are a registered Republican, you fit the real definition of a RINO.


226 posted on 04/02/2007 8:33:40 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY

You are pro “it’s none of the government’s business”, and I like that.


227 posted on 04/02/2007 8:35:08 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"P.S. A pro-life position requires government “interference” in making abortion illegal."

That could be true if you supposed that anything not specifically illegal, was legal, which it is not.

In addition, if Roe V. Wade were overturned, then abortion would be called what it, in reality, is...murder.


228 posted on 04/02/2007 8:35:38 PM PDT by papasmurf (Join Team 36120 Free Republic Folders. Folding@Home Enter Name:FRpapasmurf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
"In addition, if Roe V. Wade were overturned, then abortion would be called what it, in reality, is...murder."

Save the sloganeering for the rubes.

It was called abortion before Roe v. Wade, it's called that now, and it will be called the same after Roe v. Wade.

229 posted on 04/02/2007 8:37:41 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
"That could be true if you supposed that anything not specifically illegal, was legal, which it is not."

You can illustrate that of course.

230 posted on 04/02/2007 8:39:04 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf; Torie
"That could be true if you supposed that anything not specifically illegal, was legal, which it is not."

Hey T...this should raise an eyebrow.

231 posted on 04/02/2007 8:40:59 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"You can illustrate that of course."

Easily.

Farting in public is not specifically illegal.

:O)

P


232 posted on 04/02/2007 8:48:34 PM PDT by papasmurf (Join Team 36120 Free Republic Folders. Folding@Home Enter Name:FRpapasmurf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

You are obviously out of loop about the doctrine of the penumbra of illegality. You need to keep up.


233 posted on 04/02/2007 8:59:19 PM PDT by Torie (The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
can't beat him intellectually or on the issues

LOLOLOL - Are you fricking serious?

234 posted on 04/02/2007 9:10:54 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Remember, don't shoot food!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
But he's far preferable to the alternative--Hillary.

There you go again, putting the cart before the horse.

There's a little thing called the "primaries" you know. Maybe when Rudy wins the nomination I'll drag out the industrial-strength clothespin. But until then, he shouldn't be elected dog catcher.

235 posted on 04/02/2007 9:16:22 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Remember, don't shoot food!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

So it’s legal.


236 posted on 04/02/2007 10:03:09 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Rudybots are delusional.


237 posted on 04/02/2007 10:03:43 PM PDT by RockinRight (Support FREDeralism. Fred Thompson in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

But it still comes down to one cherry-picked quote leading to the reasonable inference that he’s pro-choice, stacked up against numerous other quotes at the same time wherein he stated he was pro-life, and a very pro-life voting record.

I see where you are drawing your inference, and it’s imminently reasonable, but you are ignoring mounds of conflicting evidence.


238 posted on 04/03/2007 12:57:02 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

>> P.S. A pro-life position requires government “interference” in making abortion illegal. <<

P.S. For the federal government, a pro-choice position requires the federal government usurping the rights of the people to decide the issue democratucally, and baselessly invalidating state law.


239 posted on 04/03/2007 1:03:32 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

I am a conservative who usually votes Republican because the conservative candidate is usually a Republican. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A LIBERAL, regardless of the party affiliation.

It is the GOP’s responsibility to provide a real conservative candidate, and if they fail to do so, they will not have my vote. It will be their failure, not mine.

Frankly, if it is a choice between Hillary and Rudy, I would rather have Hillary. If she wins, the GOP will oppose her policies. If Rudy wins, they will support them.


240 posted on 04/03/2007 4:38:44 AM PDT by deaconjim (Because He lives...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson