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 ...
No, but the Google thing sounded better...
Months? Try Weeks.
Ron Paul only officially announced as of March 12.
That is of course with republican women. Is that registered voter republican women?
Registered Likely Primary Voter Republican Women, to be exact.
How about the resto of the population that still have no idea who Ron Paul is.
It is enough for now to gain in the Republican Primaries. That's what we're running for, currently.
Regardless, 6% is still waaaay behind other candidates (declared and undeclared)
No, Ron Paul is only behind 3 Declared Candidates: Rudy, McCain, and Romney. ALL of whom are NOT True Conservatives. Ron Paul IS.
It also does not answer the money issue. How much money has he raised?
I don't have that information (exactly; I know some numbers, but don't feel at liberty to share). Suffice it to say that he's been a very successful Fundraiser in his Congressional campaigns, and he's said he's having more success in Internet Fundraising thus far than in any of his Congressional Campaigns, ever.
Considering he's run his Congressional office on a shoe-string for decades (almost alone amongst Federal Congressmen, he always returns money to the US Treasury out of his Congressional Office Budget), be assured that every Million will go a long way.
Best, OP
he has an obvious fascination with the 18th century
he must like his women the traditional way.
ya know...barefoot, pregnant and with no voting rights
ahhhh...the good ol’ days
If you’re saying I’m pretending not to have known this, I assure you that’s not the case. Plenty of threads have continued after I’ve stopped reading or contributing to them, and I also often only read follow-ups to my own posts after a certain point. I literally did not know who that woman was in the photo and thought he’d gotten his photo taken with someone he shouldn’t have.
It’s an image problem for him. I don’t think John Kerry should be strung up for marrying Teresa Heinz Kerry, but it was enough for her to lose him votes. Barbara Bush, meanwhile, did her husband a lot of good by her image and behavior, as would Ann Romney.
I am giving FDT a chance and would like particularly to hear what he has to say that will show he’s a strong contender and not just a resume heavy on acting and a solid ACU score. His marriage will not be a positive for him, I think we’re on safe grounds to say.
(1)While he declared himself “pro-choice” in 1994
BS. He and other prolifers such as I do not want federal government involvement. It is a States Rights issue. Roe vs. Wade must be overturned. FDT never ‘declared’ such a thing as you suggest, he stated he is against federal government involvement.
(2)Reagan was a great President who was misled into signing an amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986. He later regretted it and admitted his mistake. You will find no President that has not made mistakes. However, those that recognize their mistakes and correct them are worth voting for.
(3) This is a slander on FDT. His vote to acquit on perjury was correct and not because Clinton was innocent but because the Senate trial was for removing him from office, not for convicting him on criminality. You don’t remove a President for perjury in a personal manner, but you do allow courts to pursue the criminal charge which is what happened. You and your ‘good friend’ don’t understand that an impeachment is an indictment by Congress to be followed by a Senate trial to remove a President who may then face criminal changes in a ***Court of Law***. FDT layed out carefully why a President should not be removed for lies about a personal matter in which he used no powers of the Presidency to commit the crime. You would then understand why FDT threw the book at Clinton for obstruction where persons of the government were used to further the crime. You and your friend have attempted a lame smear on a legal intellect that you could never hope to match. Due diligence requires honest work, READ:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
There is no “probably” in your ‘good friend’s’ unfair charge. He simply does not understand what he is talking about.
(4) Again you and your ‘good friend’ spin out of context the real voting record of FDT. Affirmative Action was never a bill by and of itself. It was always an amendment to a larger priority bill. FDT’s record speaks for itself, he is a solid conservative with principled views.
If you'd like to be added to the Fred Thompson list, let Howlin or me know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
Wonder no more...he is.
He needs a tan.
I agree that Murder (including abortion-murder) is a State's Issue (the Constitution leaves most issues of Common Law -- such as Murder, Theft, Fraud, etc. -- up to the several States to define and punish). However, all reports of FDT's 1994 campaign indicate that he did favor the legality of first-trimester Abortion:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. "We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us," Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday. Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. "But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document," Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it. (National Review, 6/27/94)
Like I said -- I agree that it is Constitutionally "enough" to seek the Repeal of Roe vs. Wade so that lawmaking concerning Abortion-Murder can be returned to the States, and at least those 30 or 35 States where Pro-Life Majorities hold sway can restrict or prohibit Abortion. That is MY position, that is Ron Paul's position, that is the position of "America's Only 100% Pro-Life Party (The Constitution Party), and I hope and believe that it is Fred Thompson's position.
But it's just not true to say that Thompson has always been 100% Pro-Life or has ever been a Pro-Life Leader. You said yourself, "those that recognize their mistakes and correct them are worth voting for", and that is to Thompson's credit on the Abortion issue; but he did NOT declare himself Pro-Life in '94. He was Pro-Choice in the First Trimester, with restrictions. That was his position.
I already stated my opinion, that it is no longer correct to define Fred Thompson's position as "Pro-Choice" -- I don't think that's accurate or fair given his current stance. But it's re-writing history to say that he was always "Pro-Life".
It’s not rewriting history to say FDT is prolife. Show just one vote of his that was prochoice.
You won’t find any.
FDT is undeniably prolife.
ROTFLMAO!
Do what?
“A Giuliani presidency is just as unacceptable, perhaps more so, in that a Giuliani presidency would not only be nearly as bad for the United States in the short-term as a Clinton or Obama presidency, but it would destroy the Republican Party as a conservative party for the long-term.”
Wouldn’t do FR any good either : )
More kool-aid, Sir?
LOL, have you actually looked at Ron Paul's voting record? It's not nearly as "constitutional" as he likes to portray it. Especially when it comes to the President's constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to lead the nation's military efforts.
You realise that the website you cite is lying, right?
Tell you what. Go to the Senate website, search the votes for yourself, and then get back to us.
Somehow many believe that if you don't support the Bush policy in Iraq it makes one anti-war or soft on terrorism. The truth is Bush talks war but knows not the actual meaning or deed or war. For if he did our troops would have been home over two years ago and Iraq would be in ruins not to be a threat again to anyone in our lifetime if it even was.
Other far more able nations have given safe haven to terrorism and we turn a blind eye and went to Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Yemen come to mind along with Syria. Those nations were a much greater threat than Iraq was to us. Now we have most of our resources tied up in Bush's nation building campaign and every third world nation knows it. If he wanted Saddam that bad a Letter of Marque and some silence would have likely gotten the job done at a fraction of the cost.
OK - I won't tell you.
I'm glad that Thompson has always voted for Restrictions on Abortion. I honestly am.
And, if he's elected President (that is -- if he runs at all), I hope that he will make good on his recent declaration that Roe vs. Wade was "Bad Law and Bad Medical Science", and help to return Abortion to the States. I honestly do.
My point simply concerns a matter of history -- in 1994, Thompson said he was "Pro-Choice". Now given that his version of "Pro-Choice" was that he only favored the Legality of Abortion in the First Trimester, with Restrictions, he certainly wasn't on EMILY's List.
But he wasn't declaring himself "Pro-Life"; he was declaring himself "Pro-Choice". It was 13 years ago, and I think he's gotten better. I'm simply pointing out what the man himself was saying at the time.
Ronald Reagan made a horrific mistake on Abortion, but he turned around mightily. If Fred has done the same, good on 'im. There's no harm in admitting past mistakes.
No, a reporter said that Thompson was "pro-choice". And of course, they never make mistakes (or even outright lie), do 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.