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.
He actually isn’t pushing an “alternative”. The human life amendment is not an ALTERNATE step. We want to to everything Fred is saying, PLUS push the human life amendment because human life is precious.
I don’t forget there was a civil war, although at the start of the war we weren’t banning slavery, we were working on it, and had decided that all new states had to be free states.
Do you think we should NOT have pushed for a federal ban on slavery, but should have allowed each state to have slavery or not as they saw fit? That’s how it was before the war, but nobody today seems to think that was a good thing.
I’m saying that in the end, we will feel the same way about abortion. It should NOT be something decided on a state-by-state basis.
I don’t know you but I don’t think women are “forever doomed to be seen as nothing but tramps” by any sane person. Perhaps the Taliban, perhaps some who have serious problems. And I dont think a lot of people are degenerates.
Most people are struggling to get along and live life unimpeded by the police, loan sharks, terrorists, muggers and those who would impose their vision of what is moral on them. Be it smoking, carrying a gun, bearing a child, getting a divorce.
Your vision is that women are tramps. Not mine.
Those sound like well thought out answers, and I agree with every single one of them.
“Abortion won’t ever be banned.
A nation that kills its offspring has no hope for survival.
By definition.”
There are records of abortions being performed in China in 500 BC. China’s still around.
My hope is that Fred will eventually realize he’s making a mistake by dissing the HLA, and it will remain in the platform. He’ll agree that supporting it is our party’s long range goal. The pro-life vote is something he can’t do without.
That is a pat saying and I won’t risk tiring this thread down by asking you where you got your definition.
He will, if he is the Republican party nominee.
However, I will be working for Fred Thompson to be our candidate.
Your vision is that women are tramps. Not mine.
Care to explain the logic of that one?
But you can only change hearts and minds if you advocate for something in the first place.
How about advocating for some private intervention that uses the marketplace -- the incentives -- to achieve desired results (less abortion)?
Abandoning the HLA would be an electoral disaster for the Republicans.
No, pushing for it only begets an equal push back by other people who enjoy using government to enact their advocacy issues. Don't you see the cycle of government intrusion here or are you just blind to it?
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.
I would hope that everyone here would raise the whit flag. But I would be very quick to point out the inconsistencies of those people who disdain states' rights issues when the laws enacted in some states do not bend their way or when their (the hypocrites) desired goals for legislation is for the legislation to be enacted at the federal level.
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.
Forced? If this ever came to pass, it would be because the political Right, in their attempts to federalize all their political whims and issues, left the door open for the political Left to do the same. The prevent-defense (goal line stance) to all of this conjecture and speculation is to maximize liberty and denounce government intrusion wherever it is advocated...including when the advocacy is coming from the Right!
See your post 234 and care to explain your logic with that one. Can’t help it if you sounded a bit like the Taliban. But you do.
As Fred's answer to the question clearly stated, the pro-life plank in the platform was a reaction to Roe v Wade. I don't believe the platform ever mentioned abortion before then. Fred's objection is not to the Republican party being the one that defends unborn children, but to the particular remedy that is subscribed to in the platform; the Human Life Amendment. He knows the HLA will not be passed in this country at this time. Why not look for other ways to save babies?
You can, of course, believe what you want, but Fred has stated clearly, since first mentioning the idea of running for President that he wants to do exactly that.
We do agree. I will vote for any republican if the alternative is passive acceptance of Hillary Clinton.
Do you honestly believe that, if it were put up for a vote with the citizens of your State, that people would vote to throw women in jail if they had an abortion? You're dreaming, if you think that. Now, the doctors are another story, because they are not subjective about the issue; they're in it for the money. Most people will be concerned about the women being pressured into it by parents, boyfriends, husbands, etc, because that is exactly what is happening now, because it is legal and easy to do.
The Republican platform is NOT the Ten Commandments. It’s a set of guidelines to direct party members and candidates. There will be people who don’t agree with various and sundry parts of it. Doesn’t mean they’re not Republicans, and we have the right to vote, or NOT vote for a candidate, based on their agreement with the platform.
Apparently you do not recognize that contracts, voluntary associations, and established mediation or prearranged judiciary have a place in a civilized society. If you do not understand these things then I cannot continue to rationally discuss politics with you...you obviously prefer the force of government and the tyranny of the majority. Good luck with that approach in trying to build a better society.
Lol.
Fred in '08.
LOL!!
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.