Posted on 07/24/2010 3:47:23 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Below is a transcript of a portion of Fred Thompson's interview with Rich Galen on his radio show July 23, 2010 in which Thompson and Galen discuss the relative merits of Gingrich and Palin, as well as the likelihood that either or both will enter the GOP.
Galen is a former press Secretary to Gingrich, and he gives the back of his hand to Sarah Palin in the interview, calling her "a really interesting personalit[y]...but not necessarily ... qualified to be the nominee or be president." Incredibly, and to his discredit, Thompson laughingly agrees:
"THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that. I mean, I think she’s, uh...you know...she’s doing what she does and she’s doing what she does better than anybody we’ve seen in a long time.
THOMPSON: You know she may be in the first stages of Newtism, and that is, uh, being...being a real player and going around the country making lots of money. (Laughs)
GALEN: Yeah, and ...
THOMPSON: That’s what Newt’s done for a long time and maybe he’s ready...maybe he’s ready for the next stage and maybe, uh, you’re right. Maybe Sarah’s idea is that she’ll do this for a while and then her second stage will come along a little later."
As someone who supported Fred Thompson in 2007-8 both on this forum and financially, I am bitterly disappointed that, at a minimum, he did not correct Galen's outrageous statement that she is unqualified to be either the nominee or the President. I know Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin would have defended her because I have heard them both do it. In fact, Galen would never even have made such an outrageous statement in front of them because he would know it would draw a harsh refudiation from either El Rushbo or the Great One. (In fact, I heard Levin take Ann Coulter to task one time because she trashed Thompson).
Instead, he says "uh huh" and proceeds to amplify Galen's canard by citing the lamestream media/GOP Establishment wishful thinking-spin that she is too happy making money to run. Galen is a RINO "gun for hire" and former employee of Gingrich. He is not admirable, but he is doing what he is paid for. Fred Thompson has no such excuse. Shame on him.
The transcript of the entire segment on Newt and Palin is below:
"THOMPSON: Rich Galen, the founder of Mullings.com, the wit and wisdom of Rich Galen uh, if you want to check that out. Rich, you’ve been around here a long time, uh, you worked for Newt Gingrich, you worked for Dan Quayle and, uh, GOPAC and uh...
GALEN: And Fred Thompson..
THOMPSON: Yeah, I thank you much for that. We had a lot of fun on the campaign trail. They’re coming out of the woodwork now. Do you think Newt might be serious this time...?
GALEN: Yeah I do...
THOMPSON: You know Newt pretty well and Newt, this time of the year every four years you know, uh, says, “Well, I’m thinking about it, I’m thinking about it” and then he doesn’t. What do you think?
GALEN: Yeah, I think that, uh, that this time, unless there is some..something pops up between now and next February that says “don’t do it”, he’s...I think he’s disposed to do it. So I think he’s gonna be a candidate.
THOMPSON: Is that right? How do you think he figures...is it as clear as, you know, it seems to be, and that is that Obama is very unpopular and, uh, he can’t come back like Reagan did, uh, in his second two years and be re-elected?
GALEN: And Clinton did...
THOMPSON: And Clinton did...
GALEN: Yeah, you can’t..I don’t think you can project that far out. I think what Newt is...and I’m putting words in his mouth; I haven’t discussed this with him...I have discussed the first part with him, but not this part.
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: The, uh, I think what Newt is looking at is A) the Republican competition, first of all. I mean, it doesn’t matter whether the incumbent can be defeated. If you’re not the nominee then it doesn’t make any difference. Um, and uh, I think he looks across the landscape, uh and he sees some really interesting personalities.
THOMPSON: (Loudly laughs) You’ve been in town too long Rich, you’re becoming too diplomatic. (Loudly laughs again)
GALEN: But not necessarily people who are qualified to be the nominee or be president.
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that. I mean, I think she’s, uh...you know...she’s doing what she does and she’s doing what she does better than anybody we’ve seen in a long time.
THOMPSON: You know she may be in the first stages of Newtism, and that is, uh, being...being a real player and going around the country making lots of money. (Laughs)
GALEN: Yeah, and ...
THOMPSON: That’s what Newt’s done for a long time and maybe he’s ready...maybe he’s ready for the next stage and maybe, uh, you’re right. Maybe Sarah’s idea is that she’ll do this for a while and then her second stage will come along a little later.
GALEN: There’s no, uh, I mean there’s no advantage for somebody like Sarah Palin to absolutely do, uh, you know, do a, uh, what’s the statement that we always talk about?
THOMPSON: Sherman-like...
GALEN: A Sherman statement, you know, if nominated I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. I mean, it doesn’t do any good to take herself out of the running. It makes good sense for her to be among the mentioned and, uh, you know why get in the way of that? Next Spring, sometime, she’ll decide what she wants to do and everybody will react to it then. But uh,...
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: Yeah, I think the threshold question is I think Newt is serious about it.
God bless!
“That’s from article 2, Section 1. Nothing about parents.”
“....No person except a natural born citizen....”
There it is.....
Bobby Jindal himself has recognized his lack of eligibility, has said he will not ever run.
After all he (we’re) not Democrats........Trolls among us notwithstanding........
The common definition of “natural born” at the time was a child of two citizen parents.
That definition has been recorded in the court and in congress during the era.
Not saying you’re wrong, but that’s a totally new one on me. Not conceding just yet. Can you give me a link where Jindal conceded he wasn’t eligible?
That’s from article 2, Section 1. Nothing about parents.
If we were to nominate a person whose parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth, you bet we will have a fight on our hands.
If you ask why do we care about the English common law definition, our law is based on English common law and there are many terms that carry over from it.
It’s not impossible for Jindal to become president if Republicans would fight for it, but somehow I don’t see that happening.
I like Jindal but he embarrassed himself in his one national appearance when he gave the rebuttal to Obama and it will take a while before voters think he is mature enough for the highest office.
I don’t have a link, I don’t follow Jindal that much.
“He stated on the O’Reilly factor that he would love to debate Obama.”
Newt has a history of folding like a cheap suitcase during his open debates with RatsNewt”
He was eviscerated by both Clinton and Kerry in debates. I remember how much he agreed with Kerry. It was nauseating. He is a paper tiger, a complete creation of the media.
L. Ron Hubbard?
“Care to guess who reprises the role of Sturgis?
In the Republican primary? I’d guess Romney or Newt.”
Good guess. But it would have to be Newt. Romney would have lacked the courage to march into North Mississippi looking for Forrest. Newt is arrogant enough to try, as was Sturgis. He’d do approximately as well.
Romney is much closer to McClellan, a “formidable” (in Romney’s case, overrated) organizer who can’t make a decision and who is always secretly overestimating (or in Romney’s case, afraid of) his enemy.
The text, from which the following quote was taken, was written in 1757 by a noted European Jurist, and was acknowledged by the Founders, among them Ben Franklin, who supplied the volumes to the Constitutonal Convention, as being consulted durin the writting of the Constitution. It is no coincidence that the Constitution uses the exact same Phrase “natural born citizen” as the quoted excerpt below,.......
” The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to their parents rights........”
This seems a very simple, and common sense requirement to meet, and one that seems in line with what we should expect in a person holding the highest office in the land.
I am often amazed at the logic of those that attempt to supply their own definition to the very specific term “natural born citizen”
The text? Law of Nations by Emmerick Vittal. 1757
You should note that Thomas Jefferson used this volume as the textbook for the law classes (Natural Law) he taught at William and Mary. This text was used until the late 1880’s at that institution.
Fred and Jeri were two of Sarah’s biggest supporters in 2008. Sounds like he thinks she’s not interested in running in 2012, but might be building her brand by supporting others for now, and try it later, herself.
We have some good rising conservative stars, but people get passionate about Palin. Just look at the length of this thread.
A lot of people here denigrate the passion that Sarah inspires and liken her supporters to Obama supporters.
Obama supporters really didn’t know much about his positions or ideas. It was kind of a cult following.
We started liking Sarah because of her conservative positions.
And then we just liked her a lot because she does inspire people and she has charisma.
Don’t knock that quality...it wins elections.
I don't know which of the two would be the most insufferably professorial. ;o)
Seems you twisted and spun the interview.
“I believe that you are in error. First you quote ‘a really interesting personality’ does not appear in the transcript. The correct quote is ‘some really interesting personalities’”
You have to put the two quotes together and read the entire quote:
“GALEN: The, uh, I think what Newt is looking at is A) the Republican competition, first of all. I mean, it doesn’t matter whether the incumbent can be defeated. If you’re not the nominee then it doesn’t make any difference. Um, and uh, I think he looks across the landscape, uh and he sees some really interesting personalities.
THOMPSON: (Loudly laughs) You’ve been in town too long Rich, you’re becoming too diplomatic. (Loudly laughs again)
GALEN: But not necessarily people who are qualified to be the nominee or be president.
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that.”
First, he mentions “really interesting personalities” which means Sarah Palin in the context of a GOP primary; But even if that is unclear, he immediately says who are not necessarily qualified to be the nominee or to be President, which further suggests it is her, since she alone has had her “qualifications repeatedly called into question. Third and finally, in his very next sentence, he opines using her name and suggesting that not even she believes she can be the nominee:
“GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that.”
No one can read that passage and think Galen is not referring to Palin. BTW, when Galen speaks of “interesting personalities, he merely used the plural as a more way of referring to Palin and even Thompson picked that up (referring to Galen as diplomaticc, with a chuckle)Thomspn knew who he was referring to. It is not multiple personalities in a singel individual. LOL It is personalities such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and SARAH PALIN, allof whom have personalities, only one of whom is interesting(If you think anyone in the GOP field is an “intersting personality” other than Palin, get professional help. Even her enemies are interested in her. Moreover, he goes beyond that with two additional sentence, including mentioning her by name. Yet you say:
“In fact I see no reason to think that he was referring to Gov. Palin at all in that passage.”
Wow.
Fred and his wife Jeri are supposed to be friends of Sarah - and when she was disparaged in this interview ol' Fred couldn't even make the slightest effort to defend Sarah, but instead he passively agreed and gave praise and support to ol' Newt who these days couldn't get elected to be a night watchman at Macy's. Newt's GOP influence notwithstanding, he is a relic of the past whose personal mistakes and indiscretions eclipse his duly noted wisdom and genius as an old GOP mover and shaker. As some may say, it is better to be a “has been than a never was”, but my beef isn't with Newt's asskisser man but rather with ol' Fred.
It just goes to show you that Fred was always soft where it matters and doesn't have the fortitude to fight for what is right or to defend a conservative friend.
Speaking of ol' Fred being soft.... I wonder, how does his wife put up with him at night?
I used to listen to Fred’s podcast. Generally agreed with him.
Things that turned me off: he definitely had the Senate “camaraderie” thing going on. And a definite “ruling class” mindset.
Fred Thompson is just like all of the Republican whores who suddenly dropped out of the race and supported that little louse John McCain. I liked Thompson, but he turned out to be just another greasy politician.
He should have stuck to pretending to be a D.A. on Law and Order, even though that show was nothing but a platform for left wing propaganda.
Don’t follow the news much do ya?
“It just goes to show you that Fred was always soft where it matters and doesn’t have the fortitude to fight for what is right or to defend a conservative friend.
Speaking of ol’ Fred being soft.... I wonder, how does his wife put up with him at night?”
LOL, Victoria. That one’s gonna leave mark.
As much as I wanted him to be, Fred was never as conservative as advertised. He was not a Reaganite but a Howard Baker protege. He was tougher than Baker but never as tough as Reagan, certainly not as tough as Palin (or even Jeri, but I think you covered that base above. LOL).
And he spent most of his career in or around Washington, except for his movie career. He was too “Establishment” to take the kinds of measures that are necessary today. And, most importantly, he was too lazy even to run for President hard. I don’t think he would have had the stomach for a real fight. In fact, if he just chuckles while a pansy like Rich Galen smears a conservative constitutionalist whom he should always defend (even if he doesn’t support her), then he certainly wouldn’t be able to mix it up with Schumer or Reid or Waxman who are playing hard ball 24/7.
We will have the right nominee in 2012, Galen and Fred to the contrary notwithstanding. She can take care of herself, but there will be plenty of us out here watching her back as 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.