Posted on 09/04/2007 8:40:11 PM PDT by SmithL
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's current political playbook - a high-profile visit to the "Tonight" show, a splashy bus tour, the efforts to take a familiar actor and reintroduce him in a new political role - contains pages that look eerily familiar to California voters.
Maybe that's because the former Tennessee senator now has at his side some of same key aides who - in nine short weeks - helped transform Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger from "The Terminator" into the chief executive of the Democratic-leaning most populous state in the nation.
Thompson plans to formally kick off his presidential bid - shaped around the themes of "security, unity and prosperity" - beginning today with a blitz that reflects his media savvy and his advantages as an actor better known to many Americans as District Attorney Arthur Branch on TV's "Law & Order."
Thompson's campaign includes two veterans of another whirlwind effort - the 2003 California recall election starring Schwarzenegger - who know first hand at least some of the challenges ahead.
They are Todd Harris, who was Schwarzenegger's campaign communications director and will hold the same title for Thompson, and veteran Republican strategist and Fox News commentator Karen Hanretty, the former press secretary for the 2003 recall effort, who will be Thompson's deputy communications director.
Adam Mendelsohn, the governor's current communicators director, said the pair provide Thompson a "a big picture thinker out of the box" - Harris - and "one of the most effective political spokeswomen in the country" - Hanretty.
Both are "seasoned in translating the benefits that someone has from working in entertainment into a political reality," he said. "For Fred Thompson, it's a very smart hire: there's not a lot of people who understand taking a national entertainment figure and translating that into political value."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us." ~~Ann Coulter, March 4, 2007
He already called it amnesty and was against it. I don’t know what else you want.
And that should influence me how exactly?
Yeah, that’s what Bush said too (remember?), but the Z-visa is amnesty and it needs to be specifically rejected before someone should be nominated to be our president. Given Fred’s alliances with McCain in the past, we need to be super careful with him on this issue. To date, he’s been kind of unclear. See what you can do to get him to flatly reject it.
Just another perspective. The majority of Americans, even right-wing Ann Coulter, does not approve of discrimination of gays. Equal rights — yes. Special rights — no. Given what we’ve seen liberal judges do lately, we need an amendment to protect the institution of marriage. I was happy when I heard Fred say to CNN that he supported the FMA, and then the very next day his campaign said that his statements on that were a mistake. Too bad. Like Mitt, I think we need to act to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman.
Nein!
Si!
“Absolutely! That is a trait that too many ‘conservatives’ don’t understand. If only the right-wing kooks would sit back and let us elect a Republican president. They would rather be ‘right’ than promote an electable candidate. The only force that can deter a 2008 Republican victory are the mental midgets with their various litmus tests.”
I agree with you 100%! The idea of being elected seems lost
on some.
“”I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” -Romney.
I happen to agree with Romney and disagree with the ACLU on this, who keep wanting to sue the pants off BSA over this.
The BSA should make their own decisions, that is the best answer. As for ‘participate’, well, actually, BSA will not even know the orientation of the kids in the scouts, so his comment pretty much lines up with the status quo.
I am sorry that Romney’s response was not sufficient gay-bashing for your liking, but this was in response to attacks by liberals and his attempt to deflect a non-issue where Romney was running as a fiscal conservative to Kennedy’s tax-and-spend liberalism. The same old divide and conquer by the left. It’s unfortunate that you are missing the context and regurgitating the same stuff the liberals have thrown at Romney in the past. You are doing the dirt-slinging that Hillary would want you to do.
Which part of “all people” did you not understand. That means he supports GAY SCOUTMASTERS.
“Just another perspective. The majority of Americans, even right-wing Ann Coulter, does not approve of discrimination of gays. Equal rights — yes. Special rights — no. Given what we’ve seen liberal judges do lately, we need an amendment to protect the institution of marriage. ... Like Mitt, I think we need to act to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman.”
I agree. I am a pro-life and pro-family pro-Christian-values social conservative, but I don’t see bashing of gays as a part of being a social conservative. I also believe strongly that preserving traditional marriage is not “anti” anything (I dont even like ‘anti-gay-marriage’ since gay marriage is an oxymoron to start with)... it needs simply to be stated as “PRO-MARRIAGE” or “PRO-TRADITIONAL-MARRIAGE” since those advocating changing marriage are anti-traditional-marriage.
Even if you think homosexuality is immoral, we’ve pretty much decided as a society to live and let live on that point. Anyone who believes in freedom should agree to that.
The part of the gay agenda that needs to be stopped is when they go beyond asking for tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle and demand equality and institutional changes:
- gay marriage and/or civil unions
- special preferences wrt job discrimination
- teaching or forcing political correct ‘tolerance’ when it conflict with religious precepts. This becomes particularly dangerous when they are intolerant of religious views on it. The beginning of tolerance is tolerance of differences of opinions. Without that ‘tolerance’ is meaningless. So we need to always preserve the right to have different opinions on these matters, in particular the rights of those who dont line up with the politically correct viewpoint.
I am offended when liberals call social conservatives ‘anti-gay bigots’, because it’s not generally true, and I think we have to be careful not to let the liberal stereotype become true.
It’s another way of saying: Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
There was a stink here in SD a few years ago over a beloved BS leader, fond of inviting boys to his cabin at night. Our good friend ended up leaving the scout program, just shy of becoming an Eagle Scout, he was so upset about this pervert and the damage he caused to the camp and the program. He had trusted this man and thought he knew him.
The guy fooled a lot of people.
Accusing politicalmom of doing Hillary's dirty work is just as vile.
“What in the Hell does Fred have to do with Giuliani or Schwarzie? “
Using the same advisors. Contrary to the bleating, it does count for something. OTOH, let Thompson stake out his positions *first*, lets not pretend to know what he’ll say. If he follows the Arnie script, it will be an issueless, celebrity driven campaign. I hope otherwise. Fred’s crowd actually is Lamar Alexander and Howard Baker, and he ran with McCain a bit in his senate days (McCain-Feingold and other things). It points to - maverick
... “No one really knows Fred Thompson’s ideas about anything yet” - he was annointed because a lot of people thought they already knew him, with his 8 years in the Senate.
... “All this nay saying is what will lose the 08’ Presidency for Repubs not the kooks.” - I agree. That’s why I am fighting back when people attack candidates unfairly, especially the blowhard attacks on Romney, and why I say: Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
“Politicalmom is speaking as a mother who actually cares.”
And I am speaking as an Eagle Scout and a father of a son in Scouting *today* who both cares and knows how the BSA actually operates.
I’ve done more for the Boy Scouts than you know, and Romney has done more for the Boy Scouts than all of us. Romney was an Eagle Scout too, and some of sons are. His actions of being on the BSA national board for almost a decade speak louder than ever about his support for scouting. In his decade on the BSA board there is not one scintilla of evidence that he did or said anything to change the BSA policy regarding scoutmasters.
What Romney said is innocuous, since he is ultimately saying “Let the BSA decide” and he knows how they decided and didnt change it. Using a tired old liberal trap as your bogus talking point of the day for why Romney isn’t the perfect gay-basher-of-your-dreams is sad, pathetic and wrong. The 2008 race should be about the future not his response to a single gotcha question 14 years ago!
“Accusing politicalmom of doing Hillary’s dirty work is just as vile.” This issue was first raised by *Ted Kennedy*.
In the general election, this bogus issue will get recycled if it ‘works’ for Hillary ends-justify-the-means Clinton.
that’s what I meant by dont do her work for her.
“The guy fooled a lot of people.” Yeah, like Mark Foley.
So maybe we should consider the once-married guy who doesnt do the gay bashing to the men with skeletons in their closet who do.
a pedophile in the Boy Scouts. great. w
If wanting children to be safe and NOT raised in a perverse atmosphere deprived of a mother AND a father is “gay-bashing” then so be it.
See 213. You are putting words in his mouth. He never said scoutmasters. He said the BSA should decide. In his 10 years on the BSA board, he never changed their policy.
You are taking some BS charges and ignoring the real story here.
Apparently you don’t even bother READING what is posted.
”I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”-Mitt Romney
Do you actually KNOW someone devastated by a Scout leader pervert?
You’re a real piece of arrogant work.
Defend the poison perverts all you want, and keep on bashing those moms.
What a real man you are.
“He already called it amnesty and was against it. I don’t know what else you want.”
An explanation from Fred for his opposition to anti-illegal immigration bills when he was in the Senate would be a good start:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1002
It’s funny that you are going after fly-specks on Romney yet are not even aware of the holes in the conservative image of Thompson. Of course he is against amnesty *now* when it is as popular as foot fungus.
So is Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney also has a veto against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants under his belt and other actions to support immigration law enforcement.
All politicians have evolution in their positions.
Thompson and Romney will not be much different from a conservative view as President. Neither will be 100% but both will be pretty solid.
You don’t know WHAT I am aware of. I have read Fred’s entire voting record.
I find Romney to be just like Bill Clinton, slick and insincere, parsing his words all the time.
I don’t like that.
That question has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion or thread or Romney. it is a complete red herring. Nice way to throw emotional side-issues into an argument already full of BS.
“Defend the poison perverts all you want,”
As I said, I am the BSA supporter, Eagle Scout and Dad of a scout. You are insulting me and trying to take some high ground. It’s pathetic. I support the current BSA position to not have gays as scoutmasters and I agree with Romney that the BSA should be the ones to decide this, not the courts.
But I don’t suck up to gay-bashing idiots who use retread attacks from Ted Kennedy ... that makes me ‘arrogant’ according to you. Just for daring to disagree with your short-sighted and phony attack.
” and keep on bashing those moms.”
I am not bashing anyone. Despite your attempt to hide behind politicalmom’s skirt, I am merely responding to attacks against a Republican that are unfair.
If you dont like personal attacks, set an example and dont engage in them.
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.