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.
Oh I “butted in”? My apologies. Go back to your private conversation on a public message board, by all means.</sarc>
By agreeing with “every single one” of Fred’s answers in the highlighted excerpts, you:
1. Believe the unborn are not persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore states should do what they want with them;
2. Believe nothing should be done at the national level to stop gay marrige, and you are “OK” with states choosing to marry gays (insane!);
3. Opposed the efforts of President Bush and members of Congress to save Terri Schiavo.
Nothing conservative about the above at all.
I will reiterate my earlier remark, that it's no surprise Fred attracts supporters like you who reject the pro-life plank.
[sigh] If Rooty Julianni is the party nominee, then the Republican Party is DEAD!
It won't make a damn bit of difference if Hillary or Rudy wins the election. There's barely a dimes bit of difference between them.
If the country is going to get flushed down the socialist toilet; I'd just as soon a damn democrat did it so I can't be associated with it's demise.
And perhaps, maybe, we can reconstitute the party - NO RINO's ALLOWED - out of the ashes.
The country is so divided on it, that you're probably never going to get your slam dunk across the board ban on abortion. At least not initially. If that's your goal, fine, great! But wouldn't be better to get say, half the "States" to do it?
So instead of a top down approach (which isn't working), why not a ground up one. At least you could start saving some lives, then you can work on the other states.
Wars are not usually won in one battle. They're usually won by winning many smaller ones. Fred's trying a new tactic, you might want to listen again.
Fred’s not “trying a new tactic.” His position is identical to Jerry Ford’s. Oppose abortion, let the states decide...in other words, let the states decide if the God-given rights to life and liberty are revocable.
The Reagan position prevailed over twenty years ago in the GOP, recognizing the personhood of the unborn, and their inclusion in the protections that are supposed to be afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment, and these Stephen A. Douglas democrats, masquerading as Republicans, are trying to gut the prolife platform he instituted.
If they succeed, the Republican Party is dead. And I for one will say “good riddance.” America already has one prodeath party, it doesn’t need another.
Look, I appreciate your commitment to life, but regardless of the GOP's past position, abortion has not gone away. And it's not likely to while it is still in the Feds hands.
I agree with you on the RINO's, but I don't count Fred as one of them.
What other parts of the unalienable rights to life and liberty do you think states suddenly have the right to do away with?
Free speech?
The right to free assembly?
Religious liberty?
The right to keep and bear arms?
I know that it sounds crazy, but there are many people in the United States that honestly do not believe that life begins at conception. If you want the 14th amendment to prevail and to get the issue revisited at the federal level then you should push to have your state recognize birth the very instant that a pregnancy is confirmed...issuing a birth certificate at that time. Physicians that perform abortions would be scared to test for pregnancy and would likely not want to take the chance of getting caught given how much paperwork and documentation go into patient records. The only thing that could not be stopped is women getting 'morning after pills' from locales where the drug is legally prescribed. Some Lefty will bring the state law through some sort of appeals process and it (the case) would eventually make it back to the high court.
Free speech?
John and Russ, the first names of two U.S. Senators; ring a bell?
The Constitution originally had a 3/5ths clause and did not allow the issue of slavery to be addressed until 1808. Prohibition of Alcohol was once made constitutional law...liberties have frequently been overlooked or been taken away through legislation; it's not always been the states doing either, as evidenced above.
Oh, and how much liberty lost do you suppose this fine list represents?
How much of that list has Fred Thompson called for the elimination of?
And Fred. McCain-Feingold was originally "McCain-Feingold-Thompson," and Senator Thompson, more than any other member of either house, including McCain and Feingold, was the primary mover of the legislation through the process from beginning to end.
Please! Who in politics has the nerve to touch anyone of those non-defense related agencies much less even talk about gutting them. Ron Paul is probably the only one but he’s also nutty enough to add defense related ones as well.
There are lots of crazy things that people believe that aren't true.
But, it is an indisputable scientific fact nowadays that human life begins at the moment of conception. The cells make the first division, and VOILA, new person, new DNA, unique in all of human history.
And that new person deserves to have their equal right to life and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty protected, just like any other person at any stage of life, young or old.
This principle is the cornerstone of American self-government.
If you love this country, what is crazy is to dymamite the cornerstone that guarantees that our posterity will live, and will be free.
Most defense-related agencies at least have a constitutional basis. So do many other functions of the federal government.
But there are certainly many agencies in that particular list that are not grounded in any enumerated constitutional power.
You must have missed the point regarding slavery. It, too, was a cornerstone...it was even sanctioned in our cornerstone document. Stranger beliefs have been widely held and seemingly insurmountable. Take your victories where you can get them and don’t look to get game, set, a match on just one or two serves...that’s an impossible strategy.
no young lady...I mean cajungirl, I am not kidding. Too much sex is bad news. It’s something a strong and patient man grows out of as he becomes wiser...women too. Don’t need a poll for that one.
Slavery was the “original sin” of the founders, for which a later generation had to pay a horrible price. It was a violation of the founding principle of the country, not a cornerstone. Read Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address, read the facts about the views of those who signed the Declaration and the Constitution and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
Lincoln brought the country back to first principles.
I agree with EV that: slavery was the opposite of what the Founders based our nation on.
They just wanted to believe that “Negroes” were not fully entitled because somehow they didn’t count the same as light skinned, more educated and well-off people. They wanted to believe they were somehow only meant for manual labor at someone else’s command.
Notice I said they WANTED to believe that.
The same is true with abortion and whether life begins at conception.
Of course a lot of people want to believe that life doesn’t begin at conception. Of course they do. You bet your bottom dollar they do. How convenient for...them. Their mothers and/or fathers didn’t abort THEM. But if it’s convenient for THEM, now that they have a life to live, they choose against all evidence and truth and common sense, to believe babies in the womb are not entitled to live.
I don’t give their “choice” to believe THAT any more credibility than I give the Founders choice to believe “Negroes” weren’t the same as whites and could be enslaved with impunity.
I do believe you are wrong about that but that is my last word on the subject.
Don’t believe my tagline,,it is a joke, I am no young lady and haven’t been for years. I am quite an old lady.
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.