Posted on 11/02/2007 9:35:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When word began circulating in Republican circles last spring that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was considering a run for the presidency, the reaction ranged from relief the party had finally found a suitable standard - bearer to squeals of delight about the actor/politician and his resemblance to former President Ronald Reagan.
It was arguably the high mark of the campaign thus far.
Thompson seemed to squander the summer as he considered his run and raised fewer campaign dollars than hoped. Once he hit the campaign trail, he was forced to acknowledge ignorance about some local issues when stumping across the country, such as Terri Schiavo and offshore drilling in Florida. Republican voters found him wanting, a reaction epitomized by a moment that can be seen on YouTube when Thompson had to ask his audience for applause.
And yet, in a striking statement about the fluidity of the Republican race, he strode into Las Vegas on Thursday as a top-tier candidate with a real shot at the nomination.
His chief opponents, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are seen as having weaknesses, especially among the party's conservative core. Thompson, who was the Republican staff lawyer for the Watergate Committee and then a prosecutor and a lobbyist, will be especially tough in the South , which is the party's geographic base and which will host an early primary in South Carolina.
The man who plays tough-talking, straight-shooting New York District Attorney Arthur Branch on TV's "Law & Order" spoke to about 100 Republicans at Stoney's Rockin' Country, a country bar on South Las Vegas Boulevard , at a breakfast fundraiser for the state Republican Party. It was an unconventional fundraiser crowd: Some seemed to be bar patrons dropping by for an early nip.
Thompson began with a joke that drew a laugh: "Keep watching those reruns. There's something called residuals," he said of "Law & Order" and its ubiquitous presence on cable TV.
He said Republicans would have to stop the Democrats, "a political party that wants to turn the country into a giant welfare state" and "plays politics with national security."
Thompson, who speaks in a laconic drawl and in a spare style devoid of policy details or soaring rhetoric, described himself as a "common -sense conservative" who believes in low taxes and strong national defense.
Politics isn't so complicated, Thompson said. "It's peace and prosperity, my friends."
It was a short speech, and then he worked the rope line.
State Sen. Bob Beers, who was at the breakfast, said he'll support Thompson. "I like him, I like his politics, and I feel comfortable following him."
Beers said Thompson's campaign hadn't asked for an endorsement or any help with his Nevada organization.
Nevada Republicans will hold their caucus Jan. 19.
Bob Beers has endorsed Fred Thompson. A worthy endorsement, IMHO.
Mind adding me to the ping list? :)
Welcome aboard!!
What makes you think I don’t like that one? It’s not stupid like “it’s not a bubble”.
I’ve looked at all the positions he’s espoused as a presidential candidate. I haven’t seen any serious issue on which he hasn’t been consistent. Enlighten me. What issue of importance has he expressed two opinions about?
Ahh, tied to the talk of “bubbles” in the tech industry, stock market, etc.
Not sure I want to associate that with Fred, even in trying to make it a negative.
“Fred’s no loser” — see, even though it says he ISN’T a loser, now you’ve got “Fred” and “Loser” associated.
If someone said there is a Fred Bubble, I certainly would say “this isn’t a bubble”. But I wouldn’t make it my theme line.
And there’s no reason to think he won’t support them next year, and the year after. Even if you think it’s just his way of adapting to the office he is running for, you won’t have to worry about him changing until he is done with the Presidency and ready to move on to some other position.
If Fred were a solid conservative, I’d understand. If you were pushing Duncan Hunter I wouldn’t argue with you. But Fred was just the driving force behind McCain/Feingold, the same legislation that first made McCain totally unacceptable to conservatives.
I’m happy to give Fred a pass on that, but it seem odd that people who hate Romney because he changed his position are so quick to ignore Fred’s strongly held positions of just a couple years ago that were anathema to the conservatives here.
I posted a 2-sentence response to a person who posted something that was totally wrong.
When someone then added a quote from Romney and said he was talking about a specific gun the guy owned for hunting, I asked him to include the part of the quote where Romney gave the name of the gun, to educate me.
I didn’t hijact the thread, someone else mentioned Romney first.
IF you are going to use a Fred thread to attack Romney, you are going to get Romney supporters DEFENDING Romney in your thread. I didnt’ say anything against Fred in that post, just corrected the statement about Romney.
And Bush supported the use of existing lines of Embryos. Which he can barely sustain a veto on, because many of our pro-life republicans aren’t protecting embryos. Oh, and with Bush, he doesn’t oppose the research, he has not proposed banning the research, he simply won’t fund it with federal funds, which I believe is Romney’s position as well.
At the time the 2nd amendment was written, “arms” had a specific meaning. There were no semi-automatic, or automatic, weapons.
Today arms include rocket propelled grenades. Do have have an absolute right to own a stinger anti-aircraft missle? That’s an “arm”, and you just said I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms?
Is there ANY weapon I can’t have? If so, how do you decide which weapons are “rights” and which are not?
You could have just said that in 2000, said “no Bush”, and we could have had Al Gore as President.
I missed where Fred Thompson promised to abolish all the current firearms laws. After all, if it’s an absolute right, there shouldn’t be any laws putting restrictions on it.
OF course, Fred won’t do that, because he wouldn’t win the election. Because there are people just as stubborn as you who disagree with you, and so long as everybody insists on 100% fealty, nobody will get elected from our side.
Thanks for the info. As a small-government/libertarian-type (and Thompson supporter), I’m glad to hear that information about Beers.
I wish Dr. Paul the best of luck, though — I have a great deal of respect for his Constitutionalist viewpoint and willingness to buck the crowd.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they are sometimes paid bloggers, in some cases Hillary’s paid bloggers.
As for this thread, I see Duncan Hunter supporters and Romney supporters disrupting every Fred thread that gets posted. I like Duncan Hunter but his so-called supporters that bash others are doing him a disservice by tainting his name. Romney I can’t stand after seeing his true colors on several vlogs. That man is a weasel and his organization is filled with the same.
The MSM is trying their damnest to create negatives on Fred Thompson and I wouldn’t be surprised if they pay bloggers to disrupt threads about him.
But still we have had good discussions here on FR about Fred Thompson. Just ignore the snipes who have nothing to contribute. Maybe FR will one day get an ignore feature like Yahoo message boards have. That’s a feature that let’s us put in the monikers of hecklers and bashers so they don’t appear in threads to us and they can’t post to us.
Actually it’s the opposite, they see a Fred thread and they try to hijack it.
This is the same argument leftist gun-grabbers use (to be clear, I am *not* calling you a leftist gun-grabber -- just observing that you are using their argument). By this argument, logically we should only be permitted to own arms that existed during Revolutionary times. It's specious. The Founders were no fools. The answers to your questions lie in the Federalist Papers.
That is a heck of an article, I have never seen anything like Romney, we think we know about politicians, but then we see something so incredible that our jaws drop in amazement.
Ann has a liberal boyfriend... she has fertility envy...
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.