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.
Libertarianism assumes that an immoral population can remain free, which it cannot. Madison was flat out correct when he said a nation based on limited government can only succeed if it maintains a moral population.
You seem to forget that we had to have a Civil War to get to the point where the President and Congress finally acted.
A Human Life Amendment would be a wonderful thing, and is the Federalist thing to do, but it is not possible at this time. There will have to be a HUGH change of heart in this country before that. Fred knows this, and is recommending an alternate way that will save as many babies as possible.
Was Terri Schiavo murdered; yes or no?
Take your juvenile games elsewhere.
I bet you would just love to have the power to limit my ability to post here, wouldn't you...or have control over whether my life was protected (or not)?
If that’s your attitude, then you must be perfectly willing to accept something even WORSE, because that’s what you’ll get with Her Heinous in the White House.
I don’t watch Meet the Depressed, primarily because I know Tim Russert’s goal is to promote HIS political party.
That said, everything I’m seeing and hearing today is Thompson did well.
His 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate shows your statement to be glaringly WRONG. You may not like him, and you can support anyone you like, but you will be challenged when you make statements that are easily refuted.
Abortion won’t ever be banned. Some of us know that because we know our fellow citizens and know that they will not tolerate the imposition of an abortion ban. They just won’t.
But you can only change hearts and minds if you advocate for something in the first place. Abandoning the HLA would be an electoral disaster for the Republicans. My hope is that Fred will realize this. I have no problem with someone saying we don’t have the votes right now for the HLA, but that it is our long term goal and we’ll work slowly toward that goal in the meantime. I have a big problem with someone saying we should just forget about ever passing the HLA and should toss it overboard.
If the Supreme Court tomorrow were to mow down the marriage laws of all fifty states and impose a federal same-sex “marriage” decree on us, I’ll bet a third of the Freepers would raise the white flag immediately. “Well, it’s a settled issue now, so let’s put it behind us, move forward and not rile up the pro-homosexual voters”.
This is why we move incrementally leftward every year. I believe it was Russell Kirk who noted that once social liberalism becomes the norm, nothing can ever stop liberalism on all fronts from advancing. From that point on, conservatives simply become passive observers in a society where liberals push further left every year, and conservatives then accept the new position as the status quo they wish to conserve. The next year, the same thing happens, and the next, and the next.
If FR is still around in 2050, we’ll likely be discussing abandoning our opposition to forced abortion and legal infanticide during the first six months after birth. After all, we don’t want to stir up sexually active voters against us, or risk being seen as theocrats.
Therein lies the rub. The Declaration states that "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The biggest problem we have in this country is that it is NOT self-evident to many that unborn children are PERSONS. You and I obviously believe that, but there is no consensus in the country regarding it. That has been our biggest problem since Roe; getting people to that realization. When that occurs, it will be less of a struggle to enact a Human Life Amendment, but until then, we have to find other ways to save as many babies as we can.
Did I understand you?
You said Fred is too close to women in his life and doesn’t want to say he would criminalize abortion because of that?
What are you suggesting? That any man could be “too close” to the women in his life who are probably a bad influence?
You have libertarianism confused with anarchy; you are incorrect?
Libertarianism assumes that an immoral population can remain free...
No! It assumes that groups of people (populations) only* become immoral when they have power over others. You do not know what you are arguing.
*There are some exceptions with those that are predisposed to perversion and craziness at birth, through genetics, or what-have-you.
I believe I already answered that question. Yes. Read my post.
Just because a lot of people today are degenerates, doesn’t mean they always will be. You act as if women are forever doomed to be seen as nothing but tramps.
A nation that kills its offspring has no hope for survival.
By definition.
Yet you want a 'federal law' to regulate abortion in all of the 50 states, when there is no such law to regulate murder. Why can't the states regulate in both areas, absent 'Roe vs. Wade'?
I guess that means he respects PRIVATE PROPERTY rights. If a school is a private school, it has every right to pass rules regarding guns on its property, as would any private business. Even if it is a State School, it can pass rules to bar guns, just as many PUBLIC buildings do right now.
I wouldn't have expected Fred to say anything differently. He is still very strong on individual gun ownership.
Just watched the segment, outstanding job by Fred!!!
You replied: You have libertarianism confused with anarchy; you are incorrect?
I then wrote: Libertarianism assumes that an immoral population can remain free...
You then replied: No! It assumes that groups of people (populations) only* become immoral when they have power over others.
I'll leave it to you to figure out the amazing contradictions in your arguments. If libertarianism has an enforcement mechanism, then it must have some way for power to be exerted over others.
You do not know what you are arguing.
I think I've got a pretty good grasp of the subject and have given some solid examples of how social liberalism leads to nanny statism. Got any examples of it leading to the opposite (i.e., lower taxes, decentralization, smaller government)?
Not at all; he's pragmatic. He knows that a Human Life Amendment has ZERO chance of passage, and he's looking for ways to SAVE babies, not demagogue the issue.
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.