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.
I just got finished writing that some of the most perverted behavior -- not always consensual -- occurs in places where homosexuality is prohibited and/or shameful. These can be nations, true, or they can be other places that shall remain unmentioned.
I’ll agree that there is no bright line, and for me that’s the problem. Clearly abortion is far more serious than many other issues that HAVE been federalized.
I can understand where people who want a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion are coming from. Same with the “gay marriage” issue. People experience a great deal of frustration at activist judges and degenerates who seem to hold sway.
Even if I don’t agree on the federalization issue doesn’t mean I disagree with the goals.
I had not thought it through to that point. I agree, however, that it would be dangerous for the liberals to allow a superior candidate to gain the edge over democRATS. Thank for your insight!
Wait? Did they evaluate Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Huckabee?
Enough of picking on everything Fred does. ENOUGH!
See Post 151 for another take on the same omission of immigration. We have some brilliant posters here, I am so impressed.
“Fred had no coherent answer on abortion. He hemmed and hawed and hawed and hemmed. In the end he meekly said the killing could go on. He said he was personally against it but could understand and accept why some people (states) might be for it.”
In fact, I thought I was listening to Bill Clinton. I have been beating the drum for Fred, but that scene with Russert shook my confidence. While even a weak-on-abortion-and-gays Fred, is better than Hillabeast; it just galls my gluteous maximus that we can’t have a REAL conservative candidate, and have to “SETTLE” for something less.
"Why not?" is a great place to start when deciding if legislation is necessary. I can practice and participate in transcendence whether or not someone else does. Not everyone experiences the same degree of transcendence and surely no two people have the same values that provide the basis for what is transcending. Anytime I feel that I know what other people's values are or should be, I am heading down that slippery slope of paternalism.
Why not allow people to burn the flag?
Why not? if they pay for the flag and wish to make their idiotic statement, I would much rather let them do so rather than prohibit them from doing so. By the way, the proper disposal for our flag is through burning, for what it is worth.
Why not permit marriage between two persons of the same sex?
Because social security survivor benefits are attached if legally recognized. If marriage between two people of the same sex is allowed, it will be a matter of time before terminally ill and widowed parents start marrying their children to keep the benefits rolling. Why discriminate if marriage is allowed to be redefined? And there really is no reason not to redefine marriage, if so desired, except that federal entitlements are riding on the legality of such bullsh!t maneuvers.
Why not allow a 15-year-old boy to come to school dressed as a girl?
Indeed, why not in a government run school that cannot practice discrimination [not a bad word] and police itself to establish good decorum. Why not support a voucher program?
Why not have female priests?
Why not, if the church so chooses...it is their business and the business of the church's members.
Why not have female soldiers?
Why not? The Navy has females and so does the Air Force. I personally served in the same units with female Marines during my last four years of my 10-year active duty stint in the Corps. Many of these Marines were good-to-go.
Why not encourage children to treat their teachers and parents as their equals?
They're not equals. A child does not have the capacity to act and make decisions as an adult would and therefore, until they reach a certain age where they've matured, these classifications are not equal. However, if a parent or teacher wants break this convention in some unique circumstances then "why not?"
Why not import totally incompatible cultures into our society?
Not sure if I could answer this question unless I knew the specifics.
Why not surrender our national independence to a global government?
Where is that happening. I'll go one better. Why not actively promote the enlarging of the United States by admitting nations that have dissolved their sovereignty through the provisions in article IV sections 3 & 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It would be cheaper than foreign aid and we'd surely replace the significance of institutions like the United Nations.
...................................................
And here we come to the nub of the problem: In a society that has lost the experience of transcendence, in a society that sees only the material or individualistic side of things, there is no answer to these questions.
An admission that the "what if?" question does not always apply universally and therefore should not be up for consideration legislatively; that is, if you value freedom.
Without an allegiance to its own transcendent essence and the ability to articulate it, no institution—and no nation—can survive the Secular-Democratic critique. Indeed, the members of such a society will fail even to recognize that a threat exists, since they no longer have any consciousness of the thing that is threatened.
The sky would fall if we practiced live-and-let-live with a minimal government? Freedom is threatening?! Who would have thunk it?
...................................................
At the same time, since people cannot actually live together without institutions, the breakdown of institutions based on shared adherence to a higher truth must lead to new institutions based, not on any ideal, but on the increasingly naked assertion of will—whether it be the will of “the people,” or the will of some oppressed minority, or the will of some managerial or ideological elite who seek to redesign the society from top to bottom.
Man, this guy cannot see past the need for government. Whether he knows it or not, he is one of government's enablers. A true statist is perpetually worried that the state will fall into the 'wrong hands'. In other words, those who love government and seek its intrusions into at least some matters will fear what government will do once the state falls into the 'hands of someone else'. A good libertarian, however, wants none of it and gets frustrated with the statists.
For these reasons, whenever the Secular-Democratic consciousness has gained power it has repeatedly led to various kinds of extremism and statism, except in those societies, such as Britain and the United States, where it was balanced and moderated by surviving elements of the Classical-Christian consciousness.
Ah-ha! Classical-Christian? That's an interesting concept, seriously. If we really could be Classically Christian, we might actually realize our libertarian side that lies dormant in far too many of us. Here's a hint: the Old Testament is not where we're going to realize our Classical-Christianess.
Not everyone experiences the same degree of transcendence and surely no two people have the same values that provide the basis for what is transcending. Anytime I feel that I know what other people's values are or should be, I am heading down that slippery slope of paternalism.
Excellent! Then you should have no problem with America having a Muslim majority. A nation cannot long exist if its values are that it has no values. If the nation has no values, how do you justify keeping anyone out who has different values? What happens when they immigrate in, outnumber you, and legislate their values? Now, your response might be, we won't let them legislate their values. In that case, you're imposing your values on them.
Regarding Auster's question, Why not import totally incompatible cultures into our society?, you responded, Not sure if I could answer this question unless I knew the specifics.
LMAO! What difference do the specifics make to someone who says "Anytime I feel that I know what other people's values are or should be, I am heading down that slippery slope of paternalism"?
You see the problem? You can't have a society with no values, at least not for long because someone with values will eventually outvote you. This is what the secular and "tolerant" Europeans are finding out now that Muslims are taking over. The reaction of the forces of "tolerance" is to pass speech codes and ban rallies that oppose Islamization. So Europe ends up in the Orwellian predicament of having hostile values imposed on their own citizens, to protect immigrants who don't respect European values, on the grounds that Europe itself has no value other than "tolerance & diversity".
Where is that happening. I'll go one better. Why not actively promote the enlarging of the United States by admitting nations that have dissolved their sovereignty through the provisions in article IV sections 3 & 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It would be cheaper than foreign aid and we'd surely replace the significance of institutions like the United Nations.
Uh, it would be cheaper than foreign aid to just add Mexico, Haiti, and nearly all of Africa as states? How do you figure that? You do realize (don't you?) that if we did that, the newly admitted states would immediately vote in a socialist government in the United States.
The sky would fall if we practiced live-and-let-live with a minimal government? Freedom is threatening?! Who would have thunk it?
Liberty is not threatening, but a valueless society will not remain free. The real difference between libertarians and Marxists isn't that the former are for less government and the latter are for total government. Both advocate policies which lead to total government. The difference is that Marxism intends for that to happen, while libertarians fumble their way into it because they don't understand human nature. Marxists do understand it and exploit it. The reason Chuck Schumer applauded the repeal of sodomy laws was because he knew it would lead to more government. The reason libertarians applauded it was because they stupidly believed it wouldn't.
Man, this guy cannot see past the need for government.
I can't see past the need for government, either. I think we need government. A society with traditional Judeo-Christian moral values will need less government on average. A society based on your idea that values are "paternalism" will need a lot of government. That's been shown to be true over and over, but you keep denying it, and can't name a single place on earth where your nihilistic view of society has led to anything other than socialism, centralization, and nanny statism.
Whether he knows it or not, he is one of government's enablers. A true statist is perpetually worried that the state will fall into the 'wrong hands'.
As opposed to the right hands? Who are they? Unless you're advocating no state at all (which you denied in an earlier post), the state has to be in someone's hands.
In other words, those who love government and seek its intrusions into at least some matters will fear what government will do once the state falls into the 'hands of someone else'. A good libertarian, however, wants none of it and gets frustrated with the statists.
So you support government that doesn't intrude into "at least some matters"? How do you plan to bring that about, and if you succeed, what authority would be left to stop anyone who disagrees with you (Nazis, Taliban, Commies....) from filling the void?
Um, no. I've been involved in the pro-life movement since just after Roe was decided. I've seen what can and cannot be done. Instead of continually yammering about what SHOULD be done, we need to concentrate on what CAN be done to start saving babies.
He's just making the point that the 'guideline' about the HLA is getting us nowhere. He has an alternate plan that CAN work; if he's given the chance to implement it.
When compared to Her Heinous, Fred will look WONDERFUL!
Bush 41 lost to Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot. And after four years in office, x42 couldn't even muster a full 50% of the vote in the next election!! We've seen what a third party challenge that talks a good game can do to this country. NO ONE should ever fall for that carp again!
Exactly; he's steady, and folks will realize that if they give him a chance.
Even if he'd put it that way, some folks would still be chewing on him, because he's not a purist on the issue. He's looking to get something DONE about abortion. What we have now isn't working, and there's no chance for an HLA, so why not do something different? 20 or so years after folks have voted in their States to restrict it, it may become less of an option. Then folks might start thinking more seriously about it, and decide that it IS time for an HLA.
An HLA can only happen, and stick, if peoples' hearts and minds are changed on the issue. This is what Fred has said many times.
Fred will be just fine.
Since the issue has already been federalized, Fred's vote was to keep it from getting any worse than it already was. He knows what an abomination Partial Birth Abortion is, and he had to work within the Federal framework at that point.
Because of Roe continually being used as precedent, most restrictions that States have tried to place on abortion have been shot down by the Supremes. If Roe is overturned, that weapon will be taken out of the Federal courts' hands.
Gelato >> Then you must count yourself among the very liberal.
SuziQ >> Um, no.
Capital punishment is a State’s issue and nobody’s making a big stink about it. Thompson’s remarks on the three issues are not, in my in opinion, inconsistent with Conservative views.
What you are refering to is a PLANK not a Platform. And it was a plank in the 2004 platform, not the 2008 platform. As such you can't draw any inference that Fred Thompson "rejects those 'guidelines'." The most you can say is that Fred does not agree with the 2004 Platform abortion plank. And neither do I, for some VERY good reasosn, which you don't care about. So be it. But at least I'm grounded in reality.
If you ever decide to visit Planet Earth, I'll welcome you here.
You fault Fred Thompson for lacking “charisma”. Obviously you must feel that there is an alternative who actually does possess this characteristic, at least in your eyes.
Who might that be, I wonder? I’m really curious, because from where I sit, Fred Thompson is the ONLY one who has it. Rudy Giuliani has a wee bit of it, but he’s completely unacceptable to me for other reasons. Other than these two, the candidates range from oatmeal to cream of wheat to cream of rice. Real exciting pablum. Whhop de do.
In our country, there are only two viable parties, unlike many European 2nd world countries.
If you aren't with us, you are against us.
You appear to have picked the other side, and it is noted.
yes, I think many women today would feel very offended if abortion were outlawed and a sign of a man being too close to women is that he is not willing to offend them on the abortion issue. I think Fred’s wife is very pro life, but maybe he is having too much of the you know what and that is making him a bit weak and not leaving him with all of the strength that he needs to fight for the unborn. I know it is conjecture, but it could be true. I hope not...something is making him weak on abortion. Why not aggree with the right to life plank of our party? Federalism is not a good reason to allow the continued murder of the unborn.
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.