Hawks for Thompson (Fred alert)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 07/12/07 | Stephen F. Hayes

[SE Mom]

FRED THOMPSON IS adding more big-name policy talent as his testing-the-waters committee continues to grow into a real presidential campaign. Among the new additions: Mark Esper, national security adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; Joel Shin, a top policy staffer on Bush-Cheney 2000; and Elizabeth Cheney, a former top official in the State Department's Near East and South Asia department.

Esper, who worked for Thompson when he was a Senator in the 1990s, currently serves as executive vice president of the Aerospace Industries of America and is a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Thompson previously served on the commission. Before joining AIA, Esper was Bill Frist's director of National Security Affairs. According to a biography on the U.S.-China commission website, Esper's "portfolio in that position included all defense, foreign policy, and intelligence matters for the United State Senate, where he also worked on trade and homeland security issues." He worked on executive-legislative national security matters--an important job given the Bush Administration's posture on a robust executive branch. Esper's current AIA obligations have limited his participation to that of an informal adviser.

[skinkinthegrass]

...consider, yourself slapped. :D
...while I like FDT, he needs to "flesh-out" his stance/or no stance on some issues.

[Always Right]

It is the repeat of the Bush bots. These folks are not looking before one leaps.

And that is a bunch of crap. I have been following elections for many of years and Reagan has been the only candidate that I have enthusiastically supported. GW Bush never excited me. I could never stand to watch him speak and have never watched him for more than 5 minutes because he is so bad. I never cared for Bush Sr. either because he was far to moderate. Dole was completely useless and it was pointless to even nominate him. Thompson is the first candidate that I have been excited about supporting in my adult lifetime. What is mind boggling is you don't get it.

[prairiebreeze]

So you come on this thread to insult Fred and attempt to preemptively deflect any challenge by assigning the label “bot”, yet you won’t name who you like, only referring to them as “others”.

Speaking of sheep.....

[Atlas Sneezed]

One last comment to all you Thompson bot sheep: Okay, I am breaking my promise to myself. There is a huge storm coming in with lightning, and I have to turn off my computer. (My computer was fried once before.) To all you Thompson bots: Baa. (sheep talk).

Your comment seems founded on the asinine or cynical notion that it is impossible for a candidate to be truly GOOD, better than the rest, better even than most over generations.

You essentially deny that a great leader might exist in this nation. That great things are possible. And that people might actually recognize the greatness and be enthusiastic about it.

I pity you.

(But let us know if you ever wish to discuss whether Fred is potentially a great leader, or whether you might suggest someone else as being greater. And I honestly wonder whether the anti-Freds around here are so hostile just because they feel an emotional jealousy that someone else's guy is winning with such promise.)

Meanwhile, I can pass on to you a message from a friend:

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Asshat.

[xcamel]

Repost:

ASSHAT!

[rob777]

“Bush wasn’t writing articulate and accessible essays on Federalism a year before the primaries.”

You got that right, I find the comparison between Thompson and Bush to be utterly ridiculous. A year before the 2000 election Bush was pushing his “Compassionate Conservatism”. I was VERY wary of a Bush Presidency even then. I am quite excited about the prospect of a Thompson Presidency. Not only does he write coherently about federalism, but he was on the losing end of 99 - 1 votes in the U.S. Senate because he did not believe the federal government should be involved in the issue being voted on. For anyone who has been paying at least a little attention, there is absolutely no question about Fred’s commitment to limited government. After the GOP backing away form limited government conservatism starting in 1996 and two terms of big government conservatism led by Bush, a Thompson Presidency would be like cool fresh water to a person dying of thirst.

[dougd]

Seems to thre's a whole lot of "advisors" jumping on to Fred's wagon. Funny thing is - they all seem to be "unpaid"

I think Fred's more than happy to have anyone who wants to tell him what they think is going on in DC these days - so long as he doesn't have to pay them. He's no dummy.

I think we'll get a better picture when he decides who he thinks is actually worth paying to help his campaign.

While all the pundits said his late entry and lack of money was a BIG problem for him, Fred's figured out how to use that fact to his advantage.