Posted on 09/13/2007 9:05:51 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.
Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."
He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes...
Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.
Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.
In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The fact that George Will is a shill for the liberal Rudy Giuliani, exposes a less than steller intellect. In fact, lets not pull any punches. Will is a royal Rooty butt kisser. Exactly the reason for Will offering up this hit piece on FredT.
This article has already been posted on two different threads with multiple posts.
No, but this column does. Levin dissects how he argues himself into knots here.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTMxMTQ4YTRhMmMwMDhmY2E2MzY4M2I0YTAzODIwMjI=
“George Will is one of the most intelligent commentators of the day. The fact that he does not agree with a position of yours makes him no less intelligent.”
B I N G O
Fine...but he’s in the tank for Rudy.
BS! I've listened to several cuts at YouTube from Laura`s interview of Fred. Fred is making his case for limiting soft money that the Clinton`s had become famous for in the 1990`s. Fred has denounced his buy-off for limits on the issue ads coming out 30-60 days before an election. The fact is, it was Fred`s amendment that had inflation indexing of contributions added to the CFR bill. That took it from $1,000 maximum, to $2,000 maximum. Today its at $2,300.
>>>>>Fred needs a crisp message that can de-throne Guiliani. His message has to resonate with the base.
Fred`s support is up in all the polls. The most reliable pollster is Rasmussen, he has Fred up 28%-19% over Rooty Toot. Fred`s doing exactly what conservatives expected him to do. Knock off Giuliani!
Finae.
Anyone who pushes back a $10,000,000 check to a Saudid who claimed we were part of the reason for 9/11 is A-OK in my book.
Not sure if ole Fred would have the audacity to do that.
“Fred was incoherent on the Laura show. His speeches have been boring. Those are facts. He can still get the nomination but so far his responses have been less than endearing and I am not a George Will fan. Fred is not the second coming of Reagan. He looks twice as old as he should for the race. Those things being what they are Fred needs a crisp message that can de-throne Guiliani. His message has to resonate with the base. To have Fred connected to McCain Feingold does not exactly get my juices flowing. I wish Huckabee or Hunter had a chance to unseat Ghouliani, but they dont. It is entirely up to Fred to harvest his percentages at the ballot box otherwise we get the RINO Ghouliani.”
Or it could be worse ...
FredT is good enough to beat RINO Rudy but not good enough to beat Hillary (shades of ‘96 again). Then we get the nightmare
I hope it aint so. I hope Fred gets on his game.
At 28% to 20% Fed v Rudy, the writing is on the wall.
The GOP base just needed an acceptable alternative and Fred may be it. But acceptable doesnt cut it... in 2008 we face the relentless onslaught of the well-honed clinton slime machine. We need an *excellent* and energetic campaign that gets America on the Republican side.
The title for the post you referenced is: “Is a Fred Thompson Campaign Necessary?” It also is derived from the Wshington Post article I posted. There is no simple way to check for repeat posts if people alter the title in an appreciable way.
INcidentally, the article you referenced title does not actually describe what George Will said.
Who actually wrote the Move.on commentary?
George Will is a Liberal in Rino’s clothing.
I can’t stand this little (and he is) self-appointed smarty. I doubt that he has ever done anything of any worth, let alone got his hands dirty. Carried a rifle? Carried anything?
My worry too is that Fred will get the nomination then turn into Bob Dole. He just looks old and tired.
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.