Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I had said Fred Thompson could do him a lot of good if he passed “the Russert primary” with flying colors.
His campaign had been dismissing the Washington press corps, and implicitly running against the media, refusing to do the things candidates traditionally do (enter early, do five events a day, appear at the New Hampshire debate instead of the Tonight Show). But every once in a while a Washington media institution really does matter, and Meet the Press is one of them. Simply because Tim Russert, without commercial interruption, will throw hardballs and curveballs for a solid half hour, and standard delaying tactics won’t work. Also, his research staff can find every awkward quote from 1974 that every candidate dreads. Generally, a candidate who can handle Meet the Press well can handle just about any other live interview.
This morning I had caught a brief snippet – his discussion of Iraq - and thought he was striking out. I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.
Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.
My initial shallow thought was that Thompson still looks a bit on the gaunt side. Then, during the interview:
“You’ve lost a lot of weight. Is it health related?”
“Coming from you, Tim, I’ll take that as a compliment.” Ouch. Thompson says no, it’s not health related, it’s just that his wife has him on a diet to watch his cholesterol. He says he had additional tests for his Lymphoma in September and was the results were all clear.
Every once in a while Thompson slipped up - I think he suggested that oil was selling at “nah-eight hundred dollars a barrel”, and I’m wary of his quoted statistic that car bombs in Iraq are down 80 percent – but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it’s odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed.
Jen Rubin wrote, “He does not answer questions linearly with a direct answer to the question but rather talks about the subject matter. Some find this thoughtful and other think he is vamping and unfocused.” His talk on Iran was a perfect example, in that Thompson’s position isn’t terribly different from the rest of the field – he doesn’t want to use force, but he’ll keep that option open - but as he talks at length about the risks and benefits and factors that would go into a military strike, the audience, I think, will feel reassuring that if Thompson needs to face that decision, he will have weighed each option carefully.
That voice is fatherly, reassuring, calm. The contrast to Hillary couldn’t be sharper.
I’m going to say ‘well-briefed,’ but I know that will just spur one of the Thompson Associates to call me to tell me that’s not a sign of others briefing him, that’s a sign of Thompson’s own reading and study of the issues.
I was about to say that he was almost too conversational, that he could have used one quip or pithy summation at his views, and then, finally, at the tail end of his question on Schiavo, he summed up, “the less government, the better.”
I’m hearing that David Brody listened to the section on abortion and Thompson’s expression of federalism in this area, and has concluded, “all he needs now is to buy the gun that shoots him in the foot.” Look, if Fred Thompson isn’t pro-life enough for social conservatives, then nobody short of Mike Huckabee is. If Huckabee gets the nomination, great, I’d love to see Hillary Clinton go up against the Republican mirror-image of her husband’s rhetorical skills. But it feels like the past few months have been an escalating series of vetoes from various factions within the GOP. I’ve seen more amiable compromises on the United Nations Security Council.
Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.
Well, moderation may be the central thing here. And we disagree. BTW I don’t support anyone yet.
Whatever happened to Reagans “big tent” and his 11th commandment?
Yep. I like the way you said it. :-)
Abortion is NOT MANDATED anywhere except possibly China, and certainly not in “every state in the union.”
Some of the misinformation on this thread is just amazingly and appallingly erroneous.
Fred Thompson has shown for decades, both in word and deed, that he is solidly anti-abortion. What he’s trying to get through a lot of thick skulls now is that overturning Roe v Wade is a long shot and not the best way to abolish the evil practice. He’s trying to tell you that the issue needs to be taken back from the courts and given back to right-headed Americans. Right now we have little or no say on the issue, because the Supreme Court is not answerable to public opinion.
Red states, as well as some Blue ones, will take care of it on the local level through pressure from the people. It’s a lot easier to pass state law than to get a Supreme Court ruling overturned.
Please look up the word “mandate.”
He was referring to the audience that Meet the Press draws, not the moderator. And he was right.
That’s a good point, but I still think that the first half-dozen primaries will make or break Fred’s candidacy.
-------------------------------------------------
But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes, they should have, they, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.
Oh my gosh, he really is the next Bob Dole, he is even speaking about himself in the third person (\sarc)
MR. RUSSERT: You’ve spoken about that, about the death of your own daughter. Your view is it is a family’s decision to make whether to insert or remove a feeding tube.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
This is an issue I haven't followed real closely, because I tended to not like Congress intervening on this case, and I was flamed on this site for saying it.... But I thought that people here were saying that Freds daughters situation was different because of her being on a breathing machine, and not "starving her to death", yet here Fred clearly says that he agrees that removing a FEEDING TUBE is a family decision and not "murder".
Where are the Terry Shiavo people on this one? Is this OK?
I really think the issue is way too painful for Fred to deal with. We are assured that the American people were outraged by what was happening to Terri Schiavo. This is why congress passed what they did. All the candidates need to work on this. The whole world watched Terry starve to death.
“I say overturn Roe v Wade and then let’s fight it out at the state level...”
I agree, and Fred is right saying it should be a state issue. I also believe that most every state would vote to end abortions except for saving a mother’s life, rape, or incest. That would drasticly cut the number of abortions from the current level!
You can say that again. If the purists keep up their "standards" and only vote for someone who suits them 100%, we will lose election after election until we will never win another election. In a war, you never give up conquered territory. You protect what you have until you can advance a bit more later. Libs understand this but conservatives don't. With conservatives it's either all or nothing.
Oh, I certainly would not denigrate the right to privacy just because it is not enumerated. I think it is one of MANY rights that were not enumerated simply because the founders thought they were so obvious.
But there is no precedent in the law to extend the rights of personhood to embryos. Such a concept has never existed, and it presently the major project of pro-life advocates. Such a project is fraught with all kinds of dangers , both practical and theoretical. They extend all the way from inheritance to accidental death.
That’s why I think that there is NO chance that your favorite idea of extending the 14th amendment to embryos or fetuses. There is NO chance that any such thing was intended by those framing that Amendment, not in their wildest dreams.
No, the right to control abortions is rooted first in the general right for government at the state level to regulate the practice of medicine, and only secondly in the interest of the state in protecting life. Beyond this, I have no intention of engaging, because we will have no common ground whatsoever.
Suffice it to say that there are many monochromatic interest groups that would like to see their favorite causes federalized. I may sympathize with some, and not with others, but overall, I have an over riding interest in limiting the reach and range of the Federal Government that brings to oppose ALL such efforts to federalize what are properly state or local matters even when local governments have seemingly gone mad, as with so-called “gay marriage”, a true outrage if ever there was one. The temptation is great, but it just isn’t worth it.
Thanks for your reasoned post.
I was against any congressional intervention (I am opposed to making any law that basically fits only one situation, and I believe that the State was who should have had final say, regardless if I agreed with the decision or not), so I agree with Fred on this, but this also goes against everything many of his supporters were so passionate about during the Schiavo saga.
“Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.”
This can’t be repeated enough. Our country needs this message in order to remain free of leftist domination.
Your position is is no more rational than the purists'. The fact is we all need each other. We must fight it out in the primary and then lock arms and go after the RATS.
Thank you for posting Fred’s strongly pro-life positions.
If you haven’t heard anyone disputing “that philosophy” than you haven’t been listening.
I never did fell comfortable and time is proving me and others right about that discomfort.
You have my support.
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.