Posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, November 4th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former President George H.W. Bush.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Mark Penn, chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Mideast peace envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
I turned on the TV for fun and what I saw was Susan Estrich. She had a nice makeover. When she opens her mouth, I always wonder about what damaged her vocal cords.
I don't recall that he released any of his pre-presidency records. After he became president, he only released a summary of his annual physical sying that he was healthy.
He also never released any of his academic records. Even his passport was missing for the years of his European travels while supposedly studying at Oxford.
Kucinich could have saved face with a reply that, "I not only saw a UFO, I have one as my second car," followed by, "And I don't have a Secret Service detail; those guys are from the Men In Black. But to serious business here, Timothy..."
I especially like it when he keeps talking, even when Tim tries to interrupt. Fred talks slower than I would like, but he doesn't pause. I really like that about him.
Do you really think McCain will drop out before the primaries? Or, do you think Thompson could take them at the convention?
Susan’s makeover is spectacular. I need the name of her surgeon at once.
Unfortunately, he didn’t touch the inside.
I just watched Thompson’s whole thing on MTP. It’s on early here in NJ due to the NY marathon. I don’t want to say what I thought of it.
Aw, gee, THAT's a big surprise! *rolls eyes*
Jackie Mason is right. Fred needs to announce that he's a pilot. Maybe that'll convince 'em!
I think the smoking was the problem and she probably did a lot of drinking as well. I assure you that is just a guess and I have no knowledge of that.
All I know is that my sister and I sounded just alike before 20 years of extremely heavy smoking and drinking gave her a whiskey tenor; not as bad as Susan’s but ...
But she was still the Best Person I ever knew.
The domestic partner brought up that very subject while Fred was discussing his health.
The DP’s opinion was that Fred should refuse to discuss it as well.
He is wrong because that kind of thing only works for democrats.
I think McCain will drop out after New Hampshire. He’s putting everything he’s got into NH and if he doesn’t make a splash, he’ll be out.
Well put. I hope the bitter enders among us do not stay home (thereby electing Mrs. C) because the nominee is not pure enough for them.
“It was disingenuous for Thompson to say that life begins at conception but that states should be able to allow the taking of this life without due process. Is he saying that life is not protected by the Constitution even if that document states that it is? His position doesn’t make any sense.”
I know you have been a supporter of Fred for some time. Let me see if I can provide a little context for his answer that could not be given in the MTP rapid fire setting. Fred’s position, that the abortion issue is a matter for the states, is exactly the position of Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bork. Both of them oppose abortion and are not against criminalizing it at the state level. (Fred and, I think, most ethicists do not favor criminal penalties against the woman who is the second victim of the procedure, but believe the abortionists should be prosecuted). So Fred’s position is indistinguishable from Scalia’s and Bork’s on the treatment of abortion at the federal level under current law. I myself would go further and would apply the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the unborn child, defining him as a person, and giving him the rights of a citizen. That is a matter for the judiciary, however, and not for the President or for the Congress. Both Scalia and Bork oppose this application of the 14th Amendment. I have never heard Clarence Thomas’ view, so I will not try to extrapolate it from Scalia’s. Suffice it to say that under current law, Fred’s position is indistinguishable from that of Justice Scalia and Judge Bork.
On the question of the Constitutional Amendment, let me make a few observations. First, the President has no role whatsoever in a Constitutional Amendment. He neither sign it nor vetoes it. It is passed by two thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three quarters (38) of the state legislatures. There are nowhere near the votes in Congress now to pass an Amendment, probably far less than a majority. If, somehow, the prolife forces achieved the two thirds supermajority, there are probably no more than 20 state legislatures, perhaps far fewer, that would ratify the Amendment. This battle has to be won at the state level , and it cannot be joined until Roe v. Wade is consigned to the dustbin of history. The promise to support a Constitutional Amendment is “pie in the sky” which allows candidates to establish prolife bona fides with full knowledge that the Amendment cannot be achieved for decades, if ever.
Which brings me back to Fred Thompson’s position. If you are serious about Right to Life, as I know you are ( as I am), the most reliable way to advance the prolife struggle is to change the Supreme Court, not by picking judges that agree with you on this issue or that, but whose overall philosophy is one of constitutionalism. Roe v. Wade was the most extra-constitutional, anti-federalist, ultra vires arrogation of power by the federal judiciary in American history. It was based on bad law and bad science, as Fred Thompson has stated. You have to ask yourself which of the major candidates do you trust the most to nominate Justices who will overturn this blatant anti-federlist decision, not because the Justice is prolife or tell the President he is prolife (Remember Justice Anthony Kennedy, who assured both the Senate and President Reagan, when asked about abortion, that he was a practicing Catholic and then proceeded to affirm Roe). For me, the answer is easy. I choose the candidate who gives the principled answer, not necessarily the one which this group or that group feels he should give, because I trust his principles more than the other candidates’ pledges. That candidate is Fred Thompson.
Sorry for the long post, but this is an important issue for most of us.
We are just commenting on what we see. That is all. I haven’t read a single talking point on Fred. But what I see is a somewhat slowed down looking man. Maybe it is growing old gracefully. But it gives me pause. ANd no talking head told me that. I saw it with my own eyes.
Thanks for that excellent analysis.
Tim didn’t want Fred to say it, but Fred seems to say what he’s determined to say.
I thought his remarks about seeing his (now) 4 year old in the sonogram and realizing that life begins at conception were very sincere and moving.
It's fascinating to me, that a signed-up-yesterday FReeper, can precisely describe the pro-life political path we have been traveling steadily for the past decade to overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet there are Compuservers on this thread who suddenly feign amnesia, merely because they support someone else besides FRed.
Fred enumerated the fundamental principles of federalism vs. state's rights more clearly and more efficiently today than anyone since Reagan.
Anyone who doesn't believe Fred Thompson would seek out the next Nino to be on the Supreme Court will likely meet the same fate as paleo*****le Buchananite Arator-type disruptor.
snugs, I certainly wasn’t meaning to seem to attack you, hope it didn’t seem so. I was trying to respond to your points and hopefully did in a positive way, which was my intention.
There are a few ways his young family will be perceived, certainly some people will have less than positive reactions. But many will see a man who started a second family and respect him for it. Others won’t give it a second thought. I don’t think it’s an automatic negative at all.
I wanted to put straight the flat out lies that are circulating on FR (not you) and media about the indolent lymphoma too. Fred’s doctors find no medical reason to keep him from running or serving. Unless we are to believe that both Fred and his doctors are lying to the American public then these repeated allegations about his appearance and feigned concern have no more bearing in reality than the concern one would have over any candidates basic level of health.
What you may not realize since you aren’t following Fred threads much, are the absolute despicable, gutter attacks that detractors have leveled against Fred, Jeri and his children and health, his background, his family etc. As nasty, appalling and un-Christian posts as I’ve ever seen on FR in some cases. So some of the reaction here today is probably based on that, which isn’t to give that a total pass either, btw. Some Fredheads have gone onto other candidates threads with personal attacks, but I haven’t. Nor will I.
Fred with either make it or he won’t. However he’s consistent, conservative, not afraid to attack the left and name names. He is IMO, the best chance to beat Mrs. Bill Clinton. And the media is scared to death, which is very significant.
Feel free to check out Fred articles on the fredthompson keyword or his website at www.fred08.com.
blogsforthompson.com is another good Fred info site.
Regards, Prairie
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.