Free Republic

Evidently, that link on Fox is an editted interview.

the you tube vids are a little better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmU4-XSgZ0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oya6BQeOEzg

Thanks for posting the link.

Frankly I am disappointed in the interview. Hannity's questions were very soft, as were Fred's answers. I learned nothing new, nor would I think anyone that was watching. Hannity has been much more agressive with other candidates, including Rudy and McCain. With the Rudy interview, Hannity pushed Gulliani to admit whether or not he was running - and that was like in February or so.

In the intro, Hannity claims he will "talk about (Thompson's) potential run for the Witehouse" - yet what they did was talk ask about running for President in a generic sense. There was nothing specific to the subject of "Many conservative are disappointed with the current field of GOP candidates...Are you running and why would you be a better choice?"

And the absence of pointing out how he is different than the others was striking. This is valuable face time, and regardless of his intentions, you would think Thompson would want to get that out there. Instead he appears like all of the others. I did not hear how Fred was better than others due to his positions on issues, nor did I hear anything beyond lite retoric on the war on terror. Harry Reid is an easy target, and several other candidates have already stepped out in front on this issue in a much stronger way. In fact, we got the same rhetoric that we have heard from Bush - we are all in this together and the Democrats are going to contribute to the solution.

The only impression I got was he is still considering a run...but why he really thinks he can make a difference escapes me after watching it.

I saw Thompson debate Houston in his Senate run years back, and that was an impressive showing. But I think this interview was awful and does not give one any more feel for his decision to run, nor if he is ready to challenge the front runners.

The age of this report (1993) leads me to believe this has been in his opponent's hands for quite some time.

As far as smoking gun I did not see anything new that has not been discussed here. No new raw meat in the report, though he added some after this report in the 1990's...

Funny, no one is calling him a racist this time around. That was a huge deal in the NYC run. Also I think he was labeled a facist.

The turning of France to the right could be a huge step in the WOT.

When, in the history of war, has a nation that decides to retreat, printed up a schedule of that retreat and handed it to its enemies?"

Ask your congressional representatives this question.

I made a promise to myself a long time ago that if I ever seriously contemplated suicide, I would drop everything that tied me to this current life, and walk away to start a new one.

Think that’s a VW rabbit, but they really did capture that “on the Freeway” look.

"LA Marathin Mural" when at 405

Well, I think regardless of how visually exciting a glassified Iran would be, we won’t need to use nukes to pacify them. It actually is a similar problem to Iraq...their military will be very easy to be in a short amount of time, but what comes after is the real challenge. Iran is proving to be quite adept at covert operations world wide.

I think Hunter, Romney and Thompson would likely nominate more conservative justices, in line with Alito and Roberts.....Gun control is not a hot topic in Congress (the dems are afraid of it), and I see states making the next forays into abortion legislation. Rudy is weak on those issues, but I think he would be strong on national security.

I think the May 3rd Debate will put Guliani on stage with Hunter et al. I think at that point it will be an opportunity to press RG on his second admendment stance and Supremes stance to see what his real intent is in these areas. If someone like Ducan Hunter wants to distinguish himself, he will need to make the lines between himself and Gulliani clear and wide. It will also serve as a chance for Gulliani to clarify his position with conservatives, and possibly gain back some ground. I usually don't think these early "large" debates are useful, but I think this one is going to be under the current state of the candidates.

Yeah, I voted for the ears too. I think I learned that lesson then.

Dare I ask the age old question then, what happens if he wins the nomination? Or is that answered in I won't vote for him.

How about this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts

Some oldtimers died in that battle.

Who is the second “good GOP” candidate in your mind that you mentioned above?

Within a week of Thompson [and several other reasonably well known GOPers] announcing, they will be known and obtain approximately as much voter support as they could get after six months in the field.

That is what I see as the fundemental flaw behind the whiole Fred Thompson run. As long as he shows no intention of running, people who want him too are spinning it such that assuming that as soon as he gets in, he will be a lightning rod for the party.

This is flawed due to serval false assumptions. #1 is that the GOP stands for conservatism. That is easily arguable that it is not true. So I don;t see GOP primary voters turning away from the celebrity candidates like Rudy and McCain.

Second, is that so many people will be so disgusted with the current crop that Thompson is a bright ray of sunshine. There are still other candidates that have higher favorable ratings than Thompson.

Third, is Thompson's potential candidacy is unknonwn and he is a darkhorse, and a 'declaration' will be a huge event. To the contrary, he has been in the polling since March. And he has a nice chunck of percentage over several candidates, but is still far behind others. He will not enjoy some massive bump. Gulliani has not 'declared' yet, but he has made his aspirations to be President known. Thompson has not disclosed his intentions at all.

And if this declaration bump was true, there are several better candidates that have declared and have not received a pimple of a bump from the party. Most people are not 'searching' for new candidates.

And maybe he doesn't want to run. Obviously his friends want him to. But so do several people here. If one of these Freepers had a widely read column or a TV interview, I am sure they would respond with a "Hell Yeah". That wouldn't make it true though. He has not indicated he would.

And he is not joining the debate. People with influence will not want to support him if he continues to wait, and will instead had already opted for someone who is running. The cancer thing is a negative issue the longer he waits it out in regards to this. Also the "fire in the belly" factor that seems like a good question for him. They will take their influence elsewhere, as they want to be in on the ground floor of the next President. And once they give their support, it will be very difficult to pull them back.

On May 3, the first debate will take place. Here is the current candidate list:

• Sam Brownback
• Jim Gilmore
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Duncan Hunter
• John McCain
• Mitt Romney
• Ron Paul
• Tom Tancredo
• Tommy Thompson

  This gives the other candidates face time. They will speak, and some will be heard. In my opinion, if he is not on that stage May 3rd, it will be too late for him. Even if he comes in later, he loses ground, not gains it.

but I don’t think there is any big advantage politically for many candidates to announce so early.

I disagree...Thompson is not raising money - the reality is money is what will aid a candidate. He will be disadvantaged. Sure he has name recognition, but so does McCain and that guy we're not supposed to mention. Rmney is even probabaly better known at this point.

This year is different from others because of the shifts in the primaries to early Feb. Not a lot of time to gain traction. I think he should have declared already - not had some actor make some off the cuff remark while pushing a TV show or have Novak spread a rumor.

He does not need to 'declare', but he needs to make his intentions known. It is getting late.

Right now, the fact he is not running makes the answer to that one easy. He needs to toss his hat into the ring.

ping

Funny how this topic is supposed to be about FR, and yet it reflects a Free-Republic-Middle-School pep rally against Rudy-Middle-School.

IMHO, the majority of members here at FR are acting as mouth-foaming moonbats when ever Guliani's name is mentioned. This smells of fear, not rational thought. I see people obsessed with Rudy in their posts, and most much more visceral than they ever are about the issues you have mentioned.

I see very few asking themselves how events got Conservatives into this hole, and offering solutions to get themselves out. Instead their focus is on one guy, propping up another guy no one really cared about until he made an opportunistic speech very early this year. Regardless of which GOP member gets the party's nomination, we will wake up and nothing will be better.

The anger, frustration, and insults directed at Guilianni are misguided in my opinion, and damaging to the issues that are important. Guliani is not the problem, he is the result of a golden opportunity squandered by conservatives and thier leadership over the past decade and a half, possibly since Bush Sr. was elected.

I would blame names such as Gingrich, Delay, Bush, Dole, Buchanan, McCain, regligous leaders such as Robertson, Falwell, even media figures such as Limbaugh, Hannity. But ultimately, the fault lies within the group of people known as "conservatives" and many here on FR. Not just 'leaders'.

To some, probably most, that list of names will invoke some emotional reactions. But in the end every one of those names has failed the cause of Conservatism, as a result of their own selfish pursuits or incompetence. I look at the Contract with America, and really wish that was still the focus of ideals in this country and of those leaders. Somehow we quickly looked somewhere else. I honestly believe it was lost when a many got obsessed with impeachment and the 2000 election.

The failure for leadership is at the national level. On the grass roots level, I believe it is still potentially vibrant. I think there is a stronger faith in Christian/Judeo God in this country now than there probably was in the 60's. And with this faith will rise social conservatism. There is also a greater amount of support for things like the military, and a true support for the missions they are executing, even though through the leadership this execution is muddled and flawed.

But I see little evidence this rising group is well represented on FR.

FR posters definitely believe in not sparing the rod, that is for sure. But sometimes the rod is used too often, and it loses its effectiveness. FR posters also exhibit a my way or highway - 'fu' - rigidity, which does not attract those that only need to be informed about these issues through active debate. Seems FR used to have debate, and was very informing, now it seems FR seems 90% vanity now, all sorts of name calling and personal attacks, and very little convincing substanative debate. When an article is posted, the same FR trolls clutter up the articles before they can be discussed with their obsessions. This does not invite outsiders, and lurkers, who are the hearts and minds that need to be won, to consider alternatives points of view to what is being presented in other forms of media.

Instead of any debate, I see things like one poster insulting another posters candidate, and then as an excuse he covers with "politics is a full contact sport". Obviously serious substance there. All I can say to that is it will not win hearts and minds.

That is just my perspective.