Author Topic: Former Sen. Fred Thompson may run (Read 5996 times)

grampster · « **on:** March 07, 2007, 01:02:33 PM »

www.draftfredthompson.com

He's considering it, strongly. May have announced today.,

Manedwolf · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:08:59 PM »

A Republican candidate that does NOT want to take our guns?

That'd be nice!

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:20:28 PM »

He sure was good in Hunt for Red October and Days of Thunder!

I'd vote for him!.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:22:31 PM »

Count me in for a vote. Strong, logical, sensible ideas, and plain-spoken.

Brad

The Rabbi · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:37:39 PM »

A former actor as President? Nah. Never happen. grin

He'd have my vote for sure.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:40:25 PM »

Fred Thompson has a lot of things going for him. He's very well spoken, he has class, he has pretty good name recognition (although mostly from TV and movies), and he has some solid conservative credentials.

I'm still bothered by the fact that he let John Glenn outfox him and set a December deadline for the investigations into Clinton's 1996 fund raising. Glenn just ran out the clock after that. The reason I'm bothered is that I wonder if he can maneuver well in a campaign.

Right now, though, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are the only good candidates. And they're so far back in the polls that they'll have to do a lot of work for one of them to make it into the final stretch.

mustanger98 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:17:19 PM »

Quote from: Sergeant Bob on March 07, 2007, 12:20:28 PM

He sure was good in Hunt for Red October and Days of Thunder!

I've seen Hunt for Red October several times and liked the movie in general even if smartAlec Baldwin was in it.

Quote from: Brad Johnson on March 07, 2007, 12:22:31 PM

Count me in for a vote. Strong, logical, sensible ideas, and plain-spoken.

I noticed that when he went on Hannity&Colmes and Greta's show.

Quote from: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 12:37:39 PM

A former actor as President? Nah. Never happen. grin

He'd have my vote for sure.

Remember Ronald Reagan? I was six when he took office, before I started seeing his old movies.

If I know more about Fred Thompson, I may just vote for him. Between him and Newt and Ron Paul, we may have some hope yet of keeping the Dems out of the White House. Now if we can also beat 'em back from their narrow majorities in both houses of Congress.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:21:39 PM »

Reagan was the first president I ever voted for, in 1980. Your irony meter needs attention.
Ron Paul is a non-starter as a candidate. I wouldn't vote for him.
Newt is good and actually doing well in the polls but he has lots of political taint.

mustanger98 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:47:34 PM »

I guess Ron Paul has Libertarian working against him.

I'm not surprised you voted for Reagan. My question about remember was editorial/general, not aimed. I figured you remembered him. I think in this case my irony meter's working just fine.

Main thing I see about Newt is the Dems raised hell over him getting divorced at some point. My Grandparents are Dems and they cuss him over that. Personally, I think Dems can't stand a politician who also happens to be a "straight shooter" regardless of part affiliation.

Hey... Ann Coulter for President. grin

The Rabbi · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2007, 04:46:08 PM »

Actually Gingrich got into trouble over some speaking fees or book royalties or something, can't remember what right now. If he had been Barney Frank needless to say it would have blown over quickly.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2007, 07:37:27 PM »

Quote

I guess Ron Paul has Libertarian working against him.

He has cut and run and defund the war working against him. Other than that, I really like him.

Sylvilagus Aquaticus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 07, 2007, 07:45:25 PM »

Quote from: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 03:46:08 PM

Actually Gingrich got into trouble over some speaking fees or book royalties or something, can't remember what right now. If he had been Barney Frank needless to say it would have blown over quickly.

He said 'Barney Frank' and 'blown' in the same sentence.

As much as I like Ron Paul, he's got less of a chance than Nader. Paul has some interesting ideas (in a good way) but his isolationist vise grip doesn't go very far. Gingrich has been out of the spotlight a long time in today's peristence of vision news cycle. As soon as the image fades off folk's retinas, they forget about it. That might be good, and it might be bad. I didn't like him at first, years ago, but I warmed up to him before the wheels fell off. Thompson certainly has a little more facial recognition than say, Tancredo, but most voters would say they absolutely know more about the mind of Obama than Uncle Fred. Ideologically, I think Thompson has it together and could get the point across much like Reagan could.

Thompson/Rice in '08? I could probably go for that and be comfortable. Hell, I supported Alan Keyes back before he went so weird.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:02:52 PM »

Quote

Hell, I supported Alan Keyes back before he went so weird.

I find him a bit weird, too, though I'm not sure why. Why do you think he's weird?

Sylvilagus Aquaticus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:30:19 PM »

He's said some uncharitable things regarding VP Cheney's daughter. Shortly thereafter, his own daughter came out and he threw her out of the family home and disowned her. He's lately been carrying on like a televangelist snake-handler who is still trying to frighten the flock with boogeymen under every bed lest the country turn more toward what would seem more like a Christian oligarchy. Don't get me wrong, I think a little religion is not bad by any means, but I get nervous when political speeches start sounding like a Promise Keepers rally.

I start getting a little spooked when I'm told I'm free to worship as I choose, but that I'd better make sure I'm worshipping correctly.

You asked. I told ya.

www.renewamerica.com
http://www.alankeyes.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20005-2005Feb12.html

Regards,
Rabbit.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 08, 2007, 01:31:18 AM »

Thompson/Brownback on the Republican ticket would be the better than they hoped for in '08.

HankB · « **Reply #15 on:** March 08, 2007, 03:47:08 AM »

Quote

Right now, though, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich are the only good candidates. And they're so far back in the polls that they'll have to do a lot of work for one of them to make it into the final stretch.

Fixed it for ya.

Quote

Hell, I supported Alan Keyes back before he went so weird.

I find him a bit weird, too, though I'm not sure why. Why do you think he's weird?

I remember casting a vote for Keyes in a Presidential primary before he got wacky - not because I thought he had any hope of winning, but because at the time, I thought he was making a lot more sense than the major candidates. (Including Bush and McCain.)

As for going wacky, IIRC, Keyes "sort of" ran against Obama for senator of Illinois, didn't he? Didn't mount a serious campaign, alternately came out for and against paying blacks "reparations" for slavery, and didn't even make the courtesy phone call congratulating Obama for winning - his mouthiness said nothing so much as "poor loser."

The Rabbi · « **Reply #16 on:** March 08, 2007, 04:10:19 AM »

I heard Tancredo once. I wasnt impressed. He seems like he wants to ride the anti-immigrant wave to the white house. I wouldnt vote for him.
Thompson/Brownback has lots of merit. I wish people would just shut up about Rice. She has the "Colin Powell" syndrome, where public servants appear smart and electable until they actually start running. She has no grassroots org and no constituency.
Keyes was probably one of the smartest people ever to run but proved he couldnt be elected dog-catcher.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #17 on:** March 08, 2007, 04:21:59 AM »

Quote

He seems like he wants to ride the anti-immigrant wave to the white house.

Cool. As long as he follows through on his promises.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #18 on:** March 08, 2007, 05:00:35 AM »

Quote from: fistful on March 08, 2007, 03:21:59 AM

Quote

He seems like he wants to ride the anti-immigrant wave to the white house.

Cool. As long as he follows through on his promises.

Except that he alienates a good part of his base. Like me. It would be like a Republican candidate favoring gun control.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2007, 05:42:24 AM »

Who is he alienating? How many Republican voters share your position on immigration? How many would stay home because of the candidates pro-enforcement policy? I think such a stance would actually bring over a lot of people who would otherwise go for the Democrat.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #20 on:** March 08, 2007, 05:44:55 AM »

Well, Jack Kemp just published an Op-Ed piece in the WSJ that said that anti-immigration Buchanan style rhetoric is not the historic voice of the Republican party. So I would say there are plenty.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #21 on:** March 08, 2007, 05:59:32 AM »

I'm not talking about "anti-immigration Buchanan style rhetoric." I'm talking about enforcing immigration policies and keeping the border secure. Not the same thing at all. It would also help if Tancredo-types would push to make it easier to immigrate legally, but without amnesty.

HankB · « **Reply #22 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:02:16 AM »

Quote from: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 04:44:55 AM

Well, Jack Kemp just published an Op-Ed piece in the WSJ that said that anti-immigration Buchanan style rhetoric is not the historic voice of the Republican party.

The Republican party rank and file isn't anti-immigration . . . it's anti-ILLEGAL-immigration.

Mistakes and typos happen, but those who intentionally leave out the all-important word ILLEGAL are guilty of an evasive form of intellectual dishonesty.

roo_ster · « **Reply #23 on:** March 08, 2007, 07:27:32 AM »

Assorted responses:

Thompson is good on most issues, bad on illegal immigration. He would be a very viable candidate.

Paul is good on most everything, bad on the war with militant Islam. (Refresh me again as to his position on illegal immigration?)

I was a GDI until the 2000 Republican primary, where I registered so I could vote for Keyes. After 2, Keyes has been a...disappointment.

Tancredo's message of enforcing our immigration laws has been polled over the years and is wildly popular. Not just a little popular, but deck-clearingly, "huge majorities of Republicans & Independents and an honest majority of Democrats" popular. Jack Kemp and like-thinkers are the minority in the Rep party, Dem party, and the unaffiliated. There are a few problems with riding the pro-enforcement message home to victory:
1. It is one issue of many & informed folks balance a number of issues before voting.
2. Politicians who get elected swim in a sea populated by those who favor LOTS of illegal immigration (gov't employees, journalists, academics, etc)
3. Many business donors don't want to trade off the deal they have: concentrated benefits and socialized (dispersed) costs.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2007, 10:02:58 AM »

Quote from: HankB on March 08, 2007, 06:02:16 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 04:44:55 AM

Well, Jack Kemp just published an Op-Ed piece in the WSJ that said that anti-immigration Buchanan style rhetoric is not the historic voice of the Republican party.

The Republican party rank and file isn't anti-immigration . . . it's anti-ILLEGAL-immigration.

Mistakes and typos happen, but those who intentionally leave out the all-important word ILLEGAL are guilty of an evasive form of intellectual dishonesty.

It'd be a lot easier to change the law to make people legal than to enforce the unworkable system we have today. But you knew that already.

News:

Author Topic: Former Sen. Fred Thompson may run (Read 5996 times)