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.
Well, she was not murdered. What happened to Terri can only be classified as manslaughter at most.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921162/posts
If you want to use barbarism as the standard for "a nation," feel free.
But if you believe our nation will survive as we deny the premise on which it was founded--that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights--you are mistaken.
After our society crumbles and God removes His protection, perhaps it will resemble that beacon of perfection, China of 500 B.C.
I, for one, prefer civilized society rooted in respect for life, rather than aspire to such death-culture barbarism.
Then you have to take small steps so that peoples' hearts and minds will change on the subject, and they'll be willing to vote for the Amendment. Fred is just stating that we are not yet at that point.
Fred is simply saying that making HLA an iron clad requirement is the wrong way to approach the subject. If the country ever got to the point that it was willing to accept the unborn as persons, the HLA would have no trouble passing. We are many years away from that point, if we ever get there.
I'll be glad to explain it, emotiongirl. In fact, here it is in its entirety:
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.
Abortion is an act of degeneracy and depravity. The practice of abortion degrades and demeans women, and attacks the very fabric of their womanhood. It takes the most beautiful aspect of God's creation, the unique female capacity to nurture life within them, and trashes it. It's based on the idea that women are tramps who are there for men to use whenever they feel like it, and not take any responsibility for their actions. Abortion isn't based on respect for women and their dignity, but on the idea that women are just a bunch of sleazy bimbos who can't be free human beings unless there's an abortion mill down on the corner, operated by some money grubbing pig who profiteers off women's bodies by ripping a human life out of the sanctity of their womb.
The reason men should be willing to give their life for women if necessary is because a woman's life is more valuable than a man's. But that value is lost in a society where abortion is normalized and sanctioned. Instead of being crucibles of life, women become degraded. Do you really think legal abortion leads to greater respect for women? You surely can't believe that.
Can't help it but you sounded a bit like the Taliban.
Oh, sure I did. (rolls eyes)
“Fred had no coherent answer on abortion.”
He had an answer. It was coherent. Perhaps you just couldn’t understand it?
Maybe get a transcript and ask for help.
Man, you’ve really drunk the libertarian Kool-Aid! Well, I’m finished with the discussion, too. But I’ll be happy to return to it if you can cite an example of a country becoming less centralized, regulated, and socialistic after becoming socially liberal.
YOU may think Fred is lackluster; I don't. I think he has reasoned arguments for his positions, and can spell those out to the voters when the time comes. He's already doing that to Republicans; it's those who have rejected him from the get go, because they already had favorite candidates, who are the most vocal here. I don't confuse FR with the real world.
And if Fred is the Republican nominee with Her Heinous as the Democrat, I think Fred will wipe the floor with her. She is NOT dynamic, by any stretch of the imagination. Just having the two of them on a stage together speaking to the American people will show folks that they won't want to listen to her haranguing them for the next four years.
Well, the HLA should stay in the platform. We have to have a goal to work towards.
While some in the episode may be judged by God as guilty of "manslaughter," the fact is that those complicit in helping Michael Schiavo carry out his first-degree murder acted in a premeditated fashion with the intent that she die by their actions.
The definition of murder.
Regardless, the point is that the federal government had the duty to intervene and save her life, since the governor would not.
He didn’t say we weren’t at that point yet, he said he opposed that point.
But practically speaking, it doesn’t matter. We are heading down a road, and at this point EVERY republican candidate will take us further down that road than we are now. At some point we’ll need a stronger candidate to keep moving, but right now every democrat is behind us pulling us back, and every republican is forward pulling us the right direction.
Then you must count yourself among the very liberal.
A pity that Fred Thompson, a candidate, rejects those "guidelines."
Despite his lackluster campaign, Bush would have easily defeated Clinton in 1992 if it had not been for Perot. Ditto for Dole in 1996.
Who's the "Ross Perot" this time around? Because that's the only way Hillary Clinton can win.
you call me emotiongirl and post that?
We disagree.
Back to Fred. I had thought he looked sort of sickly after seeing clips on the news.
But he did well on Russert and there is something quite stable and sturdy about him. No great drama, no sense he is waffling and dodging, no packaging.
I think he is a good candidate and one who would wear well.
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.