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.
Post #148 needs to be reviewed on every page of this thread. Therein is a suggestion re the endless abortion issue, which could only be improved by telling freepers how to herd cats. Just think of the cost to FR for the bandwidth gobbled up by endless one-note posters.
That may be, but I believe true respect for women comes through honoring their womanhood.
It takes a hard heart for a woman to carry a baby she feels is disposable. The womb was designed as the safest of all places, and we certainly don't help women by pretending they have no responsibility to that life growing inside them.
I share your disappointment.
We’re talking about murder, not seat belts.
Marginalize yourself all you want, but realize the people of this country had legal abortion forced upon them from the bench.
They did not choose it.
We have simply lacked the leadership to carry the torch for life that Reagan lit.
They did, that is correct.
However...it's now entrenched in the minds of many voters. It will take time to change the hearts and minds.
THANK YOU !!!!!
So if the constitution doesn’t allow the banning of guns on campus, take it to court. Fred did say there ought to be a way to have some on campus armed for the sake of safety. LIke in courthouses, public buildings etc.
Given that the above was in my post, what do you THINK I meant?
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
I agree.
How many hearts and minds did Bush change?
How many will we change by electing someone who is a notch left of Bush?
In contrast, consider the number of hearts and minds Reagan changed with his Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Leadership like that is key, and we won't see it again if settle for less.
No, I don't like that we can't get HLA passed, but the issue is SO hot that it will be demagogued by the left as a way for theocracy to push itself into all our life decisions. You and I know that is a load of carp, but there are WAY too many voters who are paranoid enough about religion that they will swallow that, hook, line and sinker.
If a Republican is elected, who has stated that he will appoint Justices to the Supremes who are willing to overturn Roe, that will be a major step. When Roe is overturned, abortions will not be outlawed, the issue will just go back to status quo ante Jan, 22, 1973. There are some states in which abortion is already legal, but most will have restrictions on it. If citizens are given the chance to actually vote on the procedure, most will allow abortions for the hard cases, but those are, at most 2% of all abortions.
Unless there is a change of heart in this country, abortion will always be legal, but it will be restricted in most places. That is not the ideal situation, but I'd rather save MOST babies, than not be able to save ANY.
Read my post. The context was murder.
Take your juvenile games elsewhere.
Please dont invite the Schiavo people over here for crying out loud.
yes, of course...and adoption is always there for young ladies. We will never be at peace as a country until abortion is stopped.
Tim will just have to have Fred on again, to cover the items he missed this time. It is a great venue for covering issues that need reasoned, thoughful answers. I suspect Tim will do just that.
We disagree. I think to elevate what is a moral issue to the level that it is, to the exclusion of a candidate who does not toe the line and agree with one on every point, is fanatical.
And to call people names, call them murderers as they seek to find common ground in a country where opinions are so varied is uncivil.
Nobody has a moral franchise to say that what they believe is the be all and the end all. This is grandiose.
then maybe, our party will realize that it is DIFFERENTIATING OUR PARTY FROM THE LIBERAL DEMS, and NOT running some northeastern liberal with an "R" after his name... ~ post 161
"...back to the way the Founders intended it to be."
Given that the above was in my post, what do you THINK I meant?
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Well, answer my question and clear up the very ambiguity that you are creating here...I'm not a genius nor am I a mind-reader.
True, she's Mondale on steroids!
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.