Posted on 03/11/2007 9:07:43 AM PDT by WileyPink
I listened to Fred Thompson and felt like I was listening to a wise uncle on a Sunday afternoon sitting on the front porch. I WILL support this man for president. I even liked the answer he gave for campaign finance reform (even though I disagree with McCain/Fiengold.) I'm a true conservative, not a hyphenated conservative. I like Mr. Thompson. Thanks for your views
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But since Barbour is known from Mississippi, and Thompson from Tennessee, it's not really a geographically well-balanced ticket. Thompson/Steele brings in the east coast, plus the minority vote, plus frankly Steele could be a good VP.
On the other hand, maybe a person with more experience should be VP in these troubled times -- as much as I like Steele, I'm not sure I'd want him to take over the Presidency if something happened in the first year.
As for myself, I have not seen ONE candidate so far that has me wanting to support them. None of them have the qualities we need to capture the WH. And if "beating HIllary" is what the goal is, people need to aim higher. Hillary will destroy herself, a la Howard Dean.
You are absolutely correct regarding the geographical balance. I don't know a lot about Michael Steele but what I do know I mostly like. I certainly could support such a ticket.
THIS would change my view of 2008 entirely. Up until now, I just have not felt the R's are doing all they can to field the BEST possible candidate. There are a bunch of "well he deserves its" in the race. Thompson would have my vote at this point.
No, ace. I prefer Rudy, because I think he kicks more arse, as I've already explained in my analysis of Fred's disappointing 1997 Senate Committe Chair performance. But Thompson is a decent man with many good qualities and if he is the GOP nominee I will support him enthusiastically over any Democrat.
Or continue to believe the MSM mantra about him? Remember, this is the same MSM that has been bashing Bush for years telling you what great guy Rudy is.
I don't give a damn about the MSM. I'm a New Yorker, and I made up my very own mind about the guy by actually watching him for years. And anyone who thinks the MSM is pro-Rudy is clueless, since I saw the New York media absolutely trash him day in and day out while he was mayor. Rudy gave it right back to them, in spades.
As for myself, I have not seen ONE candidate so far that has me wanting to support them.
All right, then, princess.
Dittos in Texas.
"WALLACE: Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
"THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years.
"We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong."
I think we have the answer we need.
Giuliani-Thompson would be an unbeatable ticket, in my opinion. A Giulian-Thompson ticket might also be unbeatable.
Ace? Princess? Why is it you closet liberals have to resort to name-baiting? Can't you give me ONE reason why Rudy is different from Hillary, instead of mouthing off like an idiot?
I'm just not comfortable with Giuliani. I've heard him say that he supports the right for a woman to "choose" to kill her baby. Then he says that a law abiding citizen in NYC should not have the right to carry a legal firearm. Hmmm. Conservative? Like I said, I'm just not comfortable. The only place I could find his views in one place was at Wikipedia.com. Here's that page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani
He is soooo in!
U-bet. Thompson does indeed seem to get it.
I think I'm going to start a new rule...sort of an adjunct to Godwin's Law. I'll call it Rockrr's Law. My law goes, the first one to holler "troll" for no good reason gets to go home and douse his head in a bucket for being a dumba$$...
His answers weren't vague:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you...
THOMPSON: ... one advantage you have in not, you know, having this as lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world.
WALLACE: I read one article that said that the timetable was you would make a decision by May.
THOMPSON: I don't know where that came from. I've never said that.
WALLACE: Do you have any kind of a deadline?
THOMPSON: No.
WALLACE: Could you go into the summer? Could you go into ...
THOMPSON: I think so.
WALLACE: As we said, perhaps the main reason that people are talking about you is this uneasy feeling among conservatives that there is not one of their own, a true conservative, in the field.
So let's do a lightning round — quick questions, quick answers, a variety of issues — to see where Fred Thompson stands.
THOMPSON: Um hmm.
WALLACE: Abortion.
THOMPSON: Pro-life.
WALLACE: Would you like to overturn Roe. ...
THOMPSON: You said lightning round, now. If you want ...
WALLACE: Well, let's go.
THOMPSON: ... more, give me another question. I'll work through it.
WALLACE: Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years.
We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong.
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody.
And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You're against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there's real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that's what's happened in a lot of these areas.
WALLACE: Gun control.
THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.
WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?
THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.
WALLACE: On the other hand, you have taken some stands that conservatives may not like. For instance, you voted for John McCain's campaign finance reform.
THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.
I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing.
So that's not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.
(snip)
WALLACE: What would you do now in Iraq?
THOMPSON: I would do essentially what the president's doing. I know it's not popular right now, but I think we have to look down the road and consider the consequences of where we are.
We're the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve and see what we're willing to do in resolving the situation that we have there. People think that if we hadn't gone down there, things would have been lovely.
If Saddam Hussein was still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than what they are today.
We've got to rectify the mistakes that we've made. We went in there too light, wrong rules of engagement, wrong strategy, placed too much emphasis on just holding things in place while we built up the Iraqi army, took longer than we figured.
Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now. We're coming in with good people. We're coming in with a lot of different people. I know General Petraeus from when he was in Tennessee at Fort Campbell. He believes in the plan. He's convinced me that they can do the job.
Why would we not take any chance, even though there's certainly no guarantees, to not be run out of that place? I mean, we've got to take that opportunity and give it a chance to work.
Yeah, wouldn't want to name-bait, ace.
Not bad at all. I prefer Giuliani-Barbour myself.
an interesting transcript. He was honest, for example saying there is really nothing the federal government can do about civil unions as decided by the states. and when he talks about abortion, its in the context of the judiciary, he isn't promising federal legislation to outlaw abortion.
Dark Jackass is more like it.
hey, you are back!!
what state could Thompson win, that Kerry won? in other words, do you think we would have the same electoral strategy as we did in 2004 - would all our chips be on Ohio again?
Sure they were. Most of his answers only raise more questions.
When pressed with a follow-up on abortion, he said, "... give me another question..."
Why?
Then, like McCain and Romney, he condemns Roe as "bad law." That does not solve what to do in its stead. Is Thompson, like McCain and Romney, a confederate on abortion? Or would he advocate a human life amendment? Does he believe life in the womb has God-given rights that must be protected by all the power of our law? Or is this "just another issue" to check off the list of what conservatives want to hear?
Further, on marriage, what exactly will he do to protect it? Does he believe marriage is a state issue?
When asked about the Second Amendment, he said, "Well, I'm against gun control generally." What does that mean?? Does he mean to imply that under some circumstances, he would favor some gun control?
Campaign finance reform is really the only clear issue here, and on that he couldn't be more wrong. Why did he join forces with McCain to trample on our First Amendment rights? Why did he try to elect John McCain president?
So far, there is nothing major that distinguishes him from John McCain, and their alliance is a major red flag.
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.