Posted on 04/03/2007 3:40:20 AM PDT by Josh Painter
For the past few weeks, ex-SEN Fred Thompson has publicly flirted with running for President... There is a yearning for a "new Reagan" to woo conservatives and moderates into a grand coalition willing to win the War and embrace market-friendly reforms to the ever growing government. But the surprisingly strong support for Fred Thompson is more than just a yearning for a "true conservative." Here are a couple reasons F. Thompson is gaining traction where others are not:
1) There is no MAJOR issue where he is at odds with any conservative wing of the party. And Thompson is not a recent convert for political reasons on any major issue.
2) Thompson was outside politics from 2002-2008 when Republican stock went downhill. As a corollary, Thompson is not tied to President Bush or the current Senate in any way.
3) Thompson's ability to communicate ideas clearly and earnestly makes many think of Reagan's ability to win over people to ideas that are not necessarily popular...
4) Most people like a person who is not a career politician but is an educated and active citizen to be President
5) Thompson is probably the most conservative electable candidate...
Fred Thompson would immediately jump onto my shortlist.
Support for Guiliani is wide and shallow. F. Thompson is a big threat tho Guiliani's lead. McCain' 20% is actually a pretty solid group that probably won't grow or shrink much over the next 6-9 months. F. Thompson could take much of the Gingrich/Brownback/Huckabee support and coalesce it around himself. F. Thompson would be the most conservative of a Guiliani-McCain-Thompson race, but he would be moderate enough and independent enough to win over voters in a general election...
My prediction is that F. Thompson will run and will be a top tier candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Paul neveer advocated leaving soldiers “flapping in the wind”.
The H377 he didn’t.
The troop increase is needed to enhance security and proactively engage the enemy, without it troops have less security and more enemy per soldier. His vote was against that, and YES effectively he voted to leave the soldiers currently in Iraq flapping in the wind. It is EXACTLY what he voted for.
(2) I'm glad he changed his mind. Did he ever make any effort to correct his mistake? We don't need any more flip-floppers on this issue.
Did that bill say anything that required troops to stay in Iraq?
That's the bogus story I referred to before. It is contradicted by other information, not the least of which is Thompson's actual voting record.
I'm glad he changed his mind. Did he ever make any effort to correct his mistake?
Considering McCain-Feingold didn't take effect until after Thompson left the Senate, it's hard to see how he could have done anything other than say (as he has), that it was a mistake. He hasn't flip-flopped either, he still seems to strongly believe that campaign finance reform is necessary, but that the McCain-Feingold way was, in hindsight, a bad idea.
Clearly, an ideal candidate would have realized that McCain-Feingold was wrong simply from a Constitutionalist perspective, but I haven't tried to claim that Thompson is a perfect candidate. :)
The_Eaglet wrote: “(1) is pro-choice”
Wrong. Fred Thompson has a 100% PRO-LIFE voting record, a ZERO rating from NARAL, a ZERO rating from Planned Parenthood and was supported by National Right to Life in his Senate campaigns.
And wrote: “2) favors the McCain-Feingold bipartisan ‘Campaign Finance Reform’ act”
Wrong. Fred Thompson has conceded that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended and has too many loopholes.
And wrote: “3) supported keeping Bill Clinton in office after he was impeached”
Wrong. Fred Thompson voted to impeach Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice and advocated that he be removed from office.
And wrote “(4) supports affirmative action.”
Correct. Fred Thompson, like 63% of all Americans, favors affirmative action.
And wrote: “Those are not conservative positions.”
Correct. Nevertheless, Fred Thompson is a conservative with an 86% rating from the American Conservative Union.
Let’s see, you got two out of five correct. That’s 40%, an “F.” You failed miserably, but thanks for playing.
I haven’t studied Fred enough to make a commitment for or against him.
But I do know that, based on the way Republican candidates are discussed here on FR, many here act like they will be satisfied with nothing less than the second coming.
Hold on to that way of thinking and we will get the second coming. The second coming of a CLINTON. Or another Dem just as bad.
Be realistic. No one of the ethical and conservative quality we want (that I want anyway) is going to even appear in the realm of presidential contenders. A person of that ilk is not going to aspire to national politics in the first place.
Through the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, had Bill Clinton been removed from office we would now be suffering our second term of President Gore. And a tanking economy.
Saddam Hussein is dead. His sons are dead. The Mission to remove the Tyrannical Regime has already been Accomplished -- years ago, now!
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have demonstrated their "gratitude" for their liberation by raising their purple fingers in the air -- and voting for THIS:
According to the Principles laid down by the 2002 State of the Union Address, the Federal Government MUST NOT provide Military and Financial support to Governments which "harbor terrorists".
The Islamic Theocracy of Iraq, which has Established "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation", is dominated by the Shi'ite Terrorist Al Dawa Party and does harbor self-confessed (and even convicted) Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition!
Why would Ron Paul, a Constitutionalist Patriot, vote in favor of Military and Financial support to a Terrorist-dominated Foreign Government? That would violate the Principles laid down by the 2002 State of the Union Address.
The fact is, RON PAUL is the ONLY 100% Anti-Terrorist candidate in the entire GOP field -- for he is is the ONLY Republican candidate calling for an immediate END to all Military and Financial support for the criminal Islamic Terrorist thug-regime of Iraq.
You tell me.
H CON. RES. 63
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
1. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
2. Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Bold is mine, it implies troops there are to stay, resolution did not call for immediate withdrawal. Have you ever read this before now? The troop strenth increase has been needed long before this, to oppose it now is to baby step willfully toward a defeated withdrawal. Leaving current troops flapping in the wind.
Looks like Fred’s doing ok on the new Rasmussen, check it out.
Fourteen percent. Giuliani, down to 26 percent!
Who cares? They were at a party, what did you want, her to show up in a nun’s habit?
From Rasmussen:
April 3, 2007
“The addition of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) to the list of candidates shakes up the race for the GOP Presidential nomination.
“Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top, but his support dips below the 30% mark for the first time in seven weeks. With Thompson in the mix, Giuliani’s support tumbles to 26%, down nine points from a week ago. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Giuliani in any Rasmussen Reports poll this year.”
Fourteen percent. Giuliani, down to 26 percent!
Check out Intrade..... he's above McCain in the trading and closing in on Rudy.....
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/#
I won’t pile on his wife, but have you seen the multiple threads regarding Rudys wife? All threads like that should stop.
Thanks Doofer, I love intrade! Far better than polls, on intrade people lay their money down :)
cva66snipe wrote: “People forget about the negatives of Fred you’re right about that.”
Yes, but Fred’s negatives pale in comparison to those of the competition:
Rudy: abortion, gays, guns, sanctuary for illegal invaders
Mitt: one word - RomneyCare
McCain: didn’t support Bush tax cuts, erratic
Gingrich: baggage, baggage, baggage
Hunter: big spender, unknown outside San Diego
Santorum: nuke Mecca quip, too polarizing
Brownback: soft on war, squish on immigration
Huckabee: pushed largest tax increase in Arkansas history
Hagel: war, what is it good for?
Paul: soft on terror
Tommy: yawn
Cox: who?
Fred Thompson is the real deal!
He’s not pro-choice. Stop spreading that lie, it’s been refuted exactly 13,233 times since March 1st.
He’s admitted that McCain-Feingold was a mistake and hasn’t done what they thought it would.
He did NOT support keeping Bill Clinton in office - he gave a very solid legal reason for voting against the one charge and for the other.
The “supports affirmative action” is a rather weak claim too.
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.