Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 06/10/2007 11:14:04 AM PDT by Josh Painter
As he prepares to announce his candidacy for president, probably sometime next month, former Senator Fred Thompson is on a persuasion tour this week, not a listening tour.
He heads to California, where his itinerary includes a series of private meetings at the conservative Hoover Institution, a public policy research center at Stanford University. Advisers say he hopes to win the backing of some of Hoover’s influential fellows. One of those fellows, George P. Shultz, the former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is already backing Senator John McCain, citing the steadfastness of his character and likening him to Ronald Reagan.
Still, Mr. Thompson senses an opening for himself among the Hooverites. Two research fellows recently wrote an op-ed for USA Today in which they said conservatives were “feeling glum” that none of the Republicans so far was offering the right message. They said they want a conservative who would: secure the nation’s borders against illegal immigrants; make government smaller; and offer “unapologetic support of Judeo-Christian morals and values.” If Mr. Thompson’s pre-campaign speeches are any indication, he seems to think he can fill that bill.
After Mr. Thompson works his powers of persuasion at Hoover, he gets to try them out on a different audience _ the viewers of the Jay Leno show. The Leno audience may not be looking for the same qualities that the Hoover crowd is seeking, but Mr. Thompson’s task in Burbank on Tuesday night boils down to the same thing: Can he sell himself?
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
If Thomas Sowell gets behind Fred, he’ll probably be my guy.
Can he sell himself?
From the Hoover Institution to the Tonight Show ~ from veeps to peeps ~ Fred is the spoonful of sugar this country needs.
Fred is good medicine.
Fred has already been quoting Sowell recently.
I think I'm going to be ill -
Can one or more of Fred's supporters offer me ONE example of Mr. Thompson, in either spoken or written form, doing this? [what I bolded]
I'm curious, since not a single example springs to mind.
As to one and two? I'm highly skeptical. I've seen a candidate so far who is hedging his words very carefully on the first one at least. And I personally suspect that on number two his choice of moderate personnel in his campaign and prospective administration would tend towards Bush redux, ie continued big spending into infinity, or at least until financial meltdown.
And I personally suspect that on number two his choice of moderate personnel in his campaign and prospective administration would tend towards Bush redux, ie continued big spending into infinity, or at least until financial meltdown.
I’ll let others address your religious concerns, but Fred is the Anti-Bush on federal spending when compared to the other contenders.
Any comment from the Fredheads on Ann Coulter's criticism of his impeachment votes on Hannity & Colmes June 5th? To what Ann said I would add one thing. Long time Freepers will recall that the key Clinton impeachment mystery was the Ted Kennedy-Phil Gramm move to a closed session resulting in the secret 100-0 vote to changed the Senate rules from the default of a real trial to the fiasco we endured. The GOP may not have had the votes to remove him, but they had the votes to keep him from laughing it off and chose not to use them. Every GOP senator then serving still owes us an explanation for that vote, especially those wanting to run against his wife. So far we've heard zilch from them all, including from McCain and Brownback. Fred did vote to convict on one count, for which I give due credit, although he had to know 67 votes weren't going to be there. On the hard vote, the one that could and should have passed and would have made a difference, Fred and his fellow 'jurors' took things as seriously as the OJ jury.
I think that is a fair question. I have not personally researched much on this issue. However, I did read an article recently that Fred was a fairly big supporter of Israel. Those are not the exact quotes, but I got the impression that he was. It certainly raised my eyebrows. I would like to see someone in office that is an avid supporter of Israel. Just my two cents.
Proves that Shultz has gone senile...
;)
One, he’s been quite clear on. Two is VERY evident in his record and I agree, he’s not a bible thumper and never has been. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t support and live by Judeo-Christian moral standards, but he certainly isn’t making a big deal out of it.
Nothing like holding a grudge, eh?
If he wants BIG coverage he will visit Paris in jail.
I'm a FredHead, but I think it's fine that questions like this are asked here.
Long time Freepers will recall that the key Clinton impeachment mystery was the Ted Kennedy-Phil Gramm move to a closed session resulting in the secret 100-0 vote to changed the Senate rules from the default of a real trial to the fiasco we endured. The GOP may not have had the votes to remove him, but they had the votes to keep him from laughing it off and chose not to use them. Every GOP senator then serving still owes us an explanation for that vote, especially those wanting to run against his wife. So far we've heard zilch from them all, including from McCain and Brownback.
I would much rather see this debated instead of whether Fred's wife dress was modest enough. I have my own idea as to why this happened, but would like to hear Fred's answer.
Good to know he has answered..do you have a source? We should be prepared to counter this kind of question. I'm sure you haven't missed the "seminar" anti-Freds here.
Clinton earned that grudge as did the AWOL (Absent WithOut Leadership) Senate. I’m especially annoyed by Phil Gramm for joining with Ted Kennedy. Gramm had been my favorite Senator and had been my presidential candidate in the 1996 primary season. The two or three (if Fred gets in) running on our side may or may not have said good things in that secret closed session, no outsiders know what happened. We know more about Rosemary Wood’s 18 minute alleged gap than we know about this key point in our history but the political class and the media’s reaction to this has been to bury it. The truth needs to be known for the good of the system. It is the same issue as with the break in Paris Hilton’s jail time, special treatment under the law. Everyone should be equal before the law, but Bill Clinton looked like he received special treatment to those who were really following the case. Before the 100-0 vote Bill Clinton was going to tried under the Senate procedures devised for Andrew Johnson’s trial as updated by Democrats in preparation for trying Nixon and most recently Reagan. Instead the prosecution, from the House, was prevented from presenting their case. The allegations were no more salacious than those the media massively covers on the celebrity beat. There was no obvious non-political reason to hold a real trial. What’s the worst that could have happened? President Al Gore for the rest of the term and eligible for two full terms. I wasn’t afraid of that, why were the Democrats afraid of it?
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.