Posted on 03/31/2007 2:27:40 PM PDT by Josh Painter
If Republicans want star power, street smarts and likeability rolled into one, they could do a good deal worse than the former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson...
He is clearly the candidate Democrats most fear. He is an articulate (whoops) conservative who also is quick on his feet and brings the gravitas and tough-mindedness that we need in the presidency.
He is used to the give and take of Washington politics, knowledge which would make him more effective than President Bush in managing the Democratic attack machine. He has also thrived as a conservative in a Hollywood culture that can be unforgiving toward anyone to the right of Bill Clinton.
These are all good reasons for Thompson to consider running. But there is one overriding reason. His nation needs him.
Obama is charismatic and Hilary is shrewd, but neither of them are equipped to fight the war that this nation will face over the next decade. The Democratic Party's treatment of President Bush since the moment he was sworn in underscores that they are not serious about solving problems or winning the war. The current scandal-mongering on even petty issues suggests to me they are not a party to be trusted with issues of war and peace...
Thompson has the charisma, the toughness and the political aptitude to move the nation forward at home and abroad. And he seems a genuinely good guy with conservative values.
It is my guess that he would run away with the Republican nomination if he entered the race. And that he would be a formidable force against any Democratic contender. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if liberal Hollywood started offering him major movie deals in the hopes of keeping him out of the race...
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualconservative.com ...
appleharvey wrote: "From what I've read, Fred Thompson has a rating of 86% fom the ACU during his career in the Senate. Not too shabby if you ask me. I say go for it Fred!"
An 86% ADU rating indicates a solid conservative, but not so far to the right to be considered a bomb thrower, like Santorum.
Fred has that rare Reaganesque ability to appeal to independents, the more thoughtful Democrats and moderates living in swing states.
As a strong fiscal conservative, I’ve long awaited a comprehensive analysis that sizes up the ‘08 field on both taxes AND spending. Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union, we now have some idea of where the candidates on both sides of the aisle stand on economic growth and size-and-scope of government issues. NTU has released a nifty scorecard that ranks all of the presidential contenders with legislative records on these issues, meaning that, unfortunately, we don’t get to see where candidates with only executive experience fit into the overall snapshot. Still, the results are enlightening, and in some cases, a bit surprising.
Each year, NTU assigns a grade to each Member of Congress w/r/t his or her votes on legislation related to taxes, debt, regulation, and spending. The NTU looks both at the percentage of the time the legislator voted for the taxpayer, and at the importance of each of those votes, weighing each vote accordingly. This prevents, for example, a congresscritter voting in favor of several small tax credits but against a huge tax cut from earning a higher score than a legislator who did the opposite, thus presenting a more accurate picture of where the candidates stand on fiscal issues than would a raw vote count. According to NTU, here are the ‘08 candidates’ most recent grades:
NTU Congressional Rating (most recent legislative year)
John McCain: A (88%)
Ron Paul: A (84%)
Sam Brownback: A (84%)
Newt Gingrich: A (79%)
Tom Tancredo: A (76%)
Fred Thompson: A (73%)
Chuck Hagel: B+ (82%)
Duncan Hunter: B (62%)
Bill Richardson: F (33%)
John Edwards: F (22%)
Dennis Kucinich: F (22%)
Hillary Clinton: F (17%)
Barack Obama: F (16%)
Joe Biden: F (11%)
Chris Dodd: F (10%)
Two things. First, this explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative. Secondly, Bill Richardson appears to be the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the field, though that’s not saying much. In order to avoid making inferences based on what may be an anomalous year on the part of some candidates, let’s now take a look at the percentage of legislative years during which each candidate received an “A” grade from the NTU:
Percent of “A” Grades
Ron Paul: 100%
Tom Tancredo: 100%
Fred Thompson: 88%
John McCain: 67%
Newt Gingrich: 57%
Sam Brownback: 50%
Chuck Hagel: 30%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
All Democrats: 0%
McCain is likely hurt by his opposition to the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade. Thompson, interestingly, received an A from the NTU almost every year he was in the Senate, bested only by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And, finally, NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government. The results are a bit surprising:
Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year
Bill Richardson: -$1.6 billion
Fred Thompson: $3.1 billion
Newt Gingrich: $4.5 billion
Barack Obama: $11.7 billion
Tom Tancredo: $13.7 billion
Duncan Hunter: $15.8 billion
Sam Brownback: $19 billion
Ron Paul: $34 billion
John McCain: $36.9 billion
Chuck Hagel: $86.7 billion
Joe Biden: $90 billion
John Edwards: $103.5 billion
Chris Dodd: $224 billion
Hillary Clinton: $378.2 billion
Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s legislative agenda would actually have led to net cuts in government. If Bill Richardson were the prototypical Democrat, I would likely have to rethink my party affiliation. And if anyone is the heir to Bill Clinton in the Democratic field, it’s Barack Obama, with his tax-and-don’t-spend policies, which are very similar to the former president’s agenda, and which is far more Clintonian than Ms. Rodham’s tax-and-spend liberalism. In fact, Hillary’s attempts to grow government dwarf those of every Republican and most Democrats in the field, proving Dick Morris right when he postulated that Hillary would be our first European-style socialist president.
On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.
http://race42008.com/2007/03/24/fiscally-fisking-the-2008-contenders/
Thanks for that analysis. Fred keeps looking better and better.
ditto!
>> Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year
It would be good to see the Fed tax revenue from each of those states.
"Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion"
And this is just from one bill! (his universal Medicare bill). What a kook!
Fred has plenty of time.
One of the most thoughtful, intelligent threads I've read:)
PING!
We are ready to donate to Fred Thompson's campaign!
If you'd like to be added to the Fred Thompson list, let Howlin or me know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
I see the race as follows:
Rudy Guiliani is a vote AGAINST Hilary Clinton, it is not a vote for Guiliani.
the way Fred Thompson is being discussed,
Fred Thompson is a vote FOR Fred Thompson regardless of who is on the side.
I think that will draw more votes than just being anti-Hilary.
I think he is the only potential nominee on the Republican side that doesn't leave a stench in the air. Rudy is more democrat than republican. McCain dances to his own tune and Romney has the appearance of a flip-flopper. The rest of the wannabes just don't have the name recognition to fire up the republican base. If Fred Thompson gets in the race he's definitely my choice. As I recall the last actor to be president did a pretty fair job of running the country. Go Fred!!!
Fred, Fred he's our man!
I've been thinking about this a great deal...wondering what is really going on here. These are what I think the perceptions are of these men.
McCain = unstable, angry, dedicated and driven. Right on SOME issues.
Hunter = stable, smart, decent, and a veteran . Right on the issues.
Romney = brilliant, but...too soon?
Newt = great intellect, articulate, questionable past, solid on issues..
Rudy = ruthless, ambitious, dedicated, hard-working, social liberal..not pleasing to many of "the base".
Fred = American.
Precisely!
And a man of bedrock integrity, which is more than you can say for some of the others. :(
"I Like Fred"
B u m p
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.