Fred Thompson to announce on the 4th of July.

[Suzie]

He's saying he is in. :thumb:

Breaking Fox News.

[Suzie]

. Report: Fred Thompson to announce White House bid (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTklRfV1GhmMBfCDQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjdmNoOTV jBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12ub7t9qp/EXP=1180618449/**http%3a//blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/report_fred_tho.html%3fcsp=34)
USA Today - 28 minutes agoFred Thompson, the TV star and former GOP senator, plans to announce over the Fourth of July holiday that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a report in The Politico....

[CountryGent]

About damn time! The DimlyCraps will be peeing in their pants for sure now.:thumb::thumb::thumb:

[Republican_Legion]

Well now its a sure thing we will have someone good on the GOP ticket. :claps:
My parents will be excited to hear this.

[maxparrish]

He is accepting donations as of JUNE 4th...he is in!

[Beowulf]

Fred, you're the only one that is keeping me from voting Constitutionalist.

[Rhino]

Fred Thompson Expected to Announce White House Candidacy in July

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

WASHINGTON — It seems all but certain that former senator and "Law & Order" TV star Fred Thompson will formally announce his campaign for president sometime after July 4.

Sources tell FOX News that the former Tennessee senator will wait until after Independence Day to announce in hopes of finding a more interested public, and the announcement could come as soon as July 5. Although plans have not yet been solidified.

And The Politico reported Wednesday that Thompson told a group of financial backers on Tuesday that he is going to run and had already raised millions of dollars. Thompson is encouraging more support as he readies his campaign in the crowded field of Republican candidates.....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276387,00.html

It may be a crowded field of Republican candidates, but it sure isn't a crowded field of conservative candidates.

The original Politico report:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

[Rhino]

From the Politico report:

The chief operations officer will be Thomas J. Collamore, a former aide to Vice President George H.W. Bush and former vice president of public affairs for Philip Morris Companies Inc. In the George H.W. Bush administration, Collamore was an assistant secretary of commerce under Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher. In the Reagan administration, he was special assistant to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige.

That reflects the pedigrees of some of the key Republicans who are likely to join the campaign, advisers say. Republicans from the grass-roots level to President Bush's inner circle have expressed frustration with the current field of candidates, and so Thompson initially will likely get a lot of fawning attention from party leaders and the news media. But it is not clear that he can turn his celebrity into a solid candidacy. Supporters realize the potential liabilities: the late start after many endorsements; donors and activists have been locked up by other candidates; a reputation for an aversion to hard work; his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer; and a bear-like physique that makes him look his 64 years.

[Lubbock]

HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.

Now maybe we can all come together.

[Rhino]

As long as we don't have to sing Kumbaya.

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/jump.gif
http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/jump.gif

[Wyatt_Junker]

Fred Thompson to announce on the 4th of July.

Will he be holding a roman candle in each hand when he announces while standing over a screaming picolo pete?

That would be the way I would do it in order to showcase my patriotic sumbitchidness.

I would also be wearing an eagle costume.

[Lazarus]

Of course we know he's running... He's been making too many policy statements of late to NOT be running... But, I hate to pour cold water on our collective elation, but Rush said that Politico has jumped the gun - Thompson's own staff is denying the July 4 announcement...

This could be just Thompson's gang trying to play the cards close to the vest, but as Rush pointed out today, Politico has a reputation for jumping the gun on political announcements - They were the ones who declared that John Edwards was announcing his pullout from the race when he announced his wife's cancer...:brow:

I have no doubt that Thompson will announce, probably sometime this Summer - and maybe even on the 4th of July... But Im not sure if he has actually announced the impending announcement... We'll see...

Still, go ahead and order up the party food and be ready - its coming this Summer, IMO...:thumb:

[Hilemanhouse]

My vote is still out on him, he seems nice enough and Law and Order is going to go to hell with him gone, but I think a lot of people want him just because he reminds them of Reagan, old and actor and republican. Other than that what do we really know about him?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Other than that what do we really know about him?

We know everything we can dig up! I've been on Senator Thompson's bandwagon ever since the first whiff of interest. I've posted numerous articles, links, etc. I will continue to do so (as should any potential voter when researching their vote!) What I see so far, I like (so far). Obviously nobody's perfect, but I can tell you this, he's MORE perfect than what's being served up in the GOP right now. There's only one other candidate I would even consider voting for, and that's Tancredo (who has already been deemed unelectable by "some").

As far as I'm concerned, and as of this moment, Fred is as good as it gets -- at LEAST I feel I can vote FOR him, instead of trying to cast my vote as to be one AGAINST another (or the lesser of two evils, which I absolutely refuse to do).

FreeConservatives - Post #1 - Fred Dalton Thompson (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=45211&highlight=Fred+Thompson&page=5)

THOMPSON, Fred Dalton - Biographical Information (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000457)

Fred Dalton Thompson - Biography (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000669/bio)
Worked as a shoe salesman, truck driver, and even a factory worker prior to becoming a lawyer.

Fred Thompson on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Foreign_Policy)

What If The Right Said Fred? (http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/03/what_if_the_right_said_fred.html)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[BEST45CAL]

'duh'

[GOP Woman]

Run, Fred, Run! I hope this is true. Fingers are crossed. :D

[PrezLeefun]

I am reading on this man's voting record and some things dont seem to be adding up.

Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

but then....
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

I dont like that. Sounds fickle.

[TSawyer2112]

:claps:

When he formally announces (dare I say?), the rest of the Republican field can hold their 'We gave it a good try, but' speeches as far as I am concerned.

:thumb:

[Gonzo67]

Sorry. I can't get behind him... Arnold Swartzenhoweverhisnameisspelled, Jessie Ventura, Fred Thompson... the responsibility of running this country has turned into nothing but Show Business. prime time entertainment. A new television show interested only in rating rather than accomplishing anything.

I don't want a Democrat for Pres, I don't want a Republican. I don't want ANY Career Politician, and I sure as hell don't want a Hollyweird Actor who is intelligent enough to know all he has to do is say what some people want to hear and he's a God.

You know who I want to run for president? The man who's wife and child was killed in the 9-11 attack. I want one of the surviving victims of Timothy Mcvey. Someone that has been subjected to what we are facing. Someone that has been AFFECTED by the fuked up choices and policies of our half-assed government.

Quit putting money in power.

You want someone to represent you, pick someone who's LIKE you. Pick a middle class working man, not some over privileged asshole that hasn't done a hard days work in his life.

Sorry, Fred may have allot on the ball. He may be a good man, he may actually believe the same things I believe. But he's an actor. NOT a President.

[UnkHiram]

Gonzo Do I need to remind you that Ronald Regan was an Actor? You cant get butter better than Regan!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
:hissyfit:

:moo: I think Fred Thompson will make a fine president.

[Lubbock]

" . . . What do we actually know about him? . . . "

The ones of us who have been following his dual career --acting and political, for upwards of thrity years know a heck of a lot about him.

An actor? For President? Perish the thought, you say?

Ask yourself this: When's the last time you saw Fred Thompson's name in the "Tabloids"?

Better question: When's the FIRST time you saw Fred Thompson's name in the "Tabloids"?

Never, you say?

No scandal?

For someone who's been acing for as long as Thompson? No scandal in the tabloids?

That ought to tell you something right there.

The rap on Thompson in "Hollyweird" is that he's from the Jimmy Stewart school of acting: Know your lines, hit your mark, and don't bump into the furniture.

He does his job with no fanfare and goes home.

As to his Politics: check out his record --not his Senatorial Record. That's easy. Did a little deeper. The rest of his political career. Dig a little deeper. Go all the way back to his days in Tennessee.

[Gonzo67]

I'm Sorry, Did Gonzo Say Something?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Gonzo67:


I think Fred Thompson will make a fine president.


My appologies LP, I'm ever so sorry I over stepped my bounds. I forgot all about the rule on the forums that says you are the only one allowed an opinion, and your opinion is the only one that matters. Please, try to forgive me!

[Gonzo67]

Gonzo Do I need to remind you that Ronald Regan was an Actor? You cant get butter better than Regan!


No you don't. And I never said he didn't do a good job. Just as I never said Fred wouldn't do a good job.

I am not questioning his ability, nor am I questioning his stand on some issues. I believe I already stated I share his opinion on some topics. I'm saying the country needs a change. We need to quit putting a check-book in the oval office. We've tried the "show business" angle, and it's doing nothing for the country. It's hurting us. We don't need a president who's time is divided between governing and the next movie deal. We don't need publicists in the white house. We need people who are going to stand up for our country. People who are going to look at the world around them and say "This needs to be fixed, so let's fix the damn thing". Not someone who is gonna sign some autographs and direct questions to his agent.

Am I saying that Fred would NOT make a good president? No. I don't know what kind of president he'll make. And if you think you DO know what kind of president he'll make based on how he feels about a particular topic, then you're ripe for being screwed over by the next person that gets put in that seat.

My personal preference would be a common, normal, every day person who has been affected by the shit hole this country has become thanks to our so called "leaders".

Running the government should not be a topic that's featured on E! Entertainment Television. It should not be followed by "Celebrity Where Are They Now" Reality shows and camera crews. We already have people in office who's number one concern is their "approval rating" and not "Am I going to destroy this country if I make this decision?".

At any rate, I am not saying Fred is a bad person. I am not saying he's "just another Hollywood Liberal", and I am NOT calling his lifestyle, career choices, nor voting record into question. I'm simply saying let's take our government out of show-business and get it back to the business of running our country. Not scrounging for ratings.

[BIGIRON]

Can anyone verify that Thompson was for or worked to pass the "McCain Feingold help liberals win law"? I heard today that he was active in its support but I want to verify this before hating his guts.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
My appologies LP, I'm ever so sorry I over stepped my bounds. I forgot all about the rule on the forums that says you are the only one allowed an opinion, and your opinion is the only one that matters. Please, try to forgive me!

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/pope.gif You're forgiven. Now go say three Hail Marys.

[Suzie]

The AOL welcome screen...

Does the GOP
Need TV Star?

He'll Take Step Toward '08 Run
Rate Fred Thompson's Chances (http://www.aol.com/redir.adp?_e_t=ap&_a_v=2.0&_a_i=100124311x1129810431x1077833487&_url=http%3a%2f%2fnews%2eaol%2ecom%2fdailypulse%2f 053007%2f%5fa%2ftime%2dfor%2dthompson%2f2007053011 3609990001%3fncid%3dNWS00010000000001)

[noncom]

Can anyone verify that Thompson was for or worked to pass the "McCain Feingold help liberals win law"? I heard today that he was active in its support but I want to verify this before hating his guts.
Pretty much the only "dirt" on Thompson so far. It's 100% true.

(Well, OK, he's recently said he didn't realize back then that it would turn out to be such a mess in practice. But that's a load of crap. No one is perfect; the only distinction is in HOW different people fail. Bottom line: when my candidate falters, I'd prefer that he do it out of opportunism rather than idiocy. And I'm convinced that Thompson isn't an idiot. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he's lying.)

So if you think that's enough reason to hate somebody then, hey, knock yourself out -- hate away. I hear Gonzo has a few thousand terrorism widows whose bandwagon you're more than welcome to jump on.

And the best part is you won't have to do ANY background checks on them at all. As Cindy Sheehan taught us: surrorgate martyrdom is the ONLY road to absolute political perfection.

[BEST45CAL]

Can anyone verify that Thompson was for or worked to pass the "McCain Feingold help liberals win law"? I heard today that he was active in its support but I want to verify this before hating his guts.
Rush was talking about that this morning on his radio program in the first hour. He doesn't seem to think much of Thompson, either.

[BEST45CAL]

:question:
If not Thompson, who would make a good choice? Everybody seems to suck now. Bunch of spineless wimp ass republicans in Washington.
:punish:

[noncom]

Rush was talking about that this morning on his radio program in the first hour. He doesn't seem to think much of Thompson, either.
Did he say WHY? Maybe he's just being lukewarm; Rush has this weird thing about never wanting to be seen as "picking a candidate" too early.

Sean Hannity doesn't seem too crazy about Fred Thompson either, but he's pretty heavily invested in Giuliani's campaign.

[BEST45CAL]

Did he say WHY? Maybe he's just being lukewarm; Rush has this weird thing about never wanting to be seen as "picking a candidate" too early.

Sean Hannity doesn't seem too crazy about Fred Thompson either, but he's pretty heavily invested in Giuliani's campaign.

No, he didn't say why. He was just quoting old news about Thompson. As for Sean Hannity, he's a moron for supporting Giuliani or even being involved with him. Conservatives should never support pseudo conservatives.

[ConspiracyBuff]

"Sean Hannity doesn't seem too crazy about Fred Thompson either, but he's pretty heavily invested in Giuliani's campaign."--noncom

Why doesn't that surprise me. I used to like Hannity but he's a sellout and I now question his conservatism.

[noncom]

No, [Rush Limbaugh] didn't say why [he doesn't think much of Thompson.] He was just quoting old news about Thompson.
You mean the ONE VOTE? OK, it was an important one but, damn.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who's waiting for a perfect candidate should go ahead and write in Jesus and then just - and this is the really important part here: shut the Hell up about it.

[UnkHiram]

Gonzo

Perhaps I misunderstood your comments, but you "Seemed" to dismiss Thompson because he was an actor. Personally, I like the guy and his record. He is NOT my first choice but I think he would be a heck of a lot better than Rudy or McCain.

[Suzie]

Posted from the cut and paste code from This site http://republicans06.blogspot.com/2007/01/ann-coulter-supports-mitt-romney.html.

Put This Straw Poll on Your Blog
Run a straw poll of your readers by cutting and pasting this code into your blog entry:
<input size="35" value="<script type=&quot;text/javascript&quot; language=&quot;javascript&quot; src=""&quot;http://www.gopstrawpolls.com/widget_200705.html&quot;></script>" type="text">
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Ann Coulter Supports Mitt Romney (http://republicans06.blogspot.com/2007/01/ann-coulter-supports-mitt-romney.html)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Speaking of Fred, Mr. Slick (Anderson Cooper) is currently spotlighting Senator Thompson on his CNN show (11:06 PM).

[Suzie]

Well I was trying to post the poll ... just go to the link, I give up. :lol:

[Pennville_Bill]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/FredT2008.gif

[Hilemanhouse]

I really don't care much that he is an actor, Ronald Reagan was one and I didn' hold it against him. I don't like many of the others but I just don't know. I tend to agree with Gonzo67 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/member.php?u=2861), we need someone who has been there and knows what the public has gone through, absent that I guess I will either vote for him or the big G.

[Rhino]

I am reading on this man's voting record and some things dont seem to be adding up.

Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

but then....
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

I dont like that. Sounds fickle.I don't see anything fickled about it. The first three are great, especially number three, since the exact same requirements for background checks are already in force at gun shows as they are everywhere else. I think you have fallen prey to the media hype about the fictitious 'gun show loophole'. There isn't one, and there never has been.

I'd need more details on number four. What was the source?

[Antigone]

I don't see anything fickled about it. The first three are great, especially number three, since the exact same requirements for background checks are already in force at gun shows as they are everywhere else. I think you have fallen prey to the media hype about the fictitious 'gun show loophole'. There isn't one, and there never has been.

I'd need more details on number four. What was the source?

Rhino,

Here is a good source to see where he stands. Prez may have gotten the info here. It looks like the right format.

ALso, it appears this vote is on the three strikes law.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

[Lazarus]

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/pope.gif You're forgiven. Now go say three Hail Marys.Make him say 3 Hail Moos...

Carolyn, in reference to your question about what we know about Thompson, check out the Election forum... Homegirl and others have posted a great deal of material on Thompson and his policies - Most of which are audio files of him speaking...

And I want to make a comment on a trend Im hearing from the MSM and parrotted far too much on this board... The MSM likes to remind everyone that Thompson is an "actor" - as if he's an actor-turned-politician... Thompson is currently involved in acting but that is not sum total of his career qualifications...

Thompson is a professional jurist... He was a lawyer and later a judge in the State of Tennessee before he became a Senator from that state... In fact his involvement in acting is the direct result of his career as a judge, and from what I can tell its nothing but an entertaining distraction for him in this particular time in his life... Its is in fact a very small part of his life's career path and is definitely nothing like the defining career that Reagan's acting experience was...

Yet the media likes to throw that out first as the sum total definition of Fred Thompson - Its their snotty little way of belittling him... Remember, these are the same people who constantly reminded us that John Kerry was in Vietnam everytime they mentioned his name - as if that bestowed some sacred endowment on that traitor...

I refuse to refer to Thompson as an actor - That is the Leftist Media's attempt to lessen his stature in the eyes of the voters - Its their way of saying "Boo! Remember the last actor we had in the Whitehouse - The Evil Reagan!!!"... I have actually only seen him in one acting role (Hunt for Red October), so as far as Im concerned, his acting is only a temporary distraction - a hobby... And until he wins the Whitehouse I will continue to refer to him as Senator Fred Thompson - a far more significant achievement of his than this very temporary acting career of his...

In the end, after he has served 2 terms as our president, history will ultimately record that Fred Thompson was Statesman - who just happened to dabble in acting as a hobby between his public offices...

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:claps: Great post, brudder!

BTW, have you checked out the thread about him quitting Law & Order? :smirky:

FreeConservatives - Fred QUITS Law & Order (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=555910#post555910)

[Rhino]

Rhino,

Here is a good source to see where he stands. Prez may have gotten the info here. It looks like the right format.

ALso, it appears this vote is on the three strikes law.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htmThanks. It wasn't the three strikes law. It was this:

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.

The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999 As I suspected, this wasn't simply a vote on more penalties for gun & drug violations. It included the fictitious 'gun show loophole' I mentioned before, which presumably is why he voted against it. That's the problem with looking at simplistic lists of votes in Congress. The way these guys tack on amendments and multiple requirements into almost every bill, it's hard to tell exactly why someone may have voted for or against a bill sometimes. If that had been simply a vote on more penalties for gun & drug violations, with nothing else attached, I highly suspect he would have voted for it. In any case, this is obviously not fickled, as it first appeared to PrezLeefun. The votes are entirely consistent, and quite sensical.

[Lazarus]

:claps: Great post, brudder!

BTW, have you checked out the thread about him quitting Law & Order? :smirky:

FreeConservatives - Fred QUITS Law & Order (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=555910#post555910)Yes I did - And Im glad to see that news... Now maybe we can get down to some serious election business... I cant wait for this freight train to hit McCain & Co... Its gonna be brutal!!! Mwahahahaha!!!

[Lazarus]

I don't see anything fickled about it. The first three are great, especially number three, since the exact same requirements for background checks are already in force at gun shows as they are everywhere else. I think you have fallen prey to the media hype about the fictitious 'gun show loophole'. There isn't one, and there never has been.Well put, Bro... Personally anytime I see that Thompson or any Senator has voted against more gun control (including these anti-gun pseudo-anti-crime bills), I consider it not only good, but entirely consistant with the Conservative dogma...

Crime is crime - it isnt somehow augmented or made more heinous by virtue of the weapon used to commit the crime... Anti-gun-crime bills are a farce and just another attempt by the left to attach a stigma of evil to guns...

So sayeth Laz...

[noncom]

And I want to make a comment on a trend Im hearing from the MSM and parrotted far too much on this board... The MSM likes to remind everyone that Thompson is an "actor" - as if he's an actor-turned-politician... Thompson is currently involved in acting but that is not sum total of his career qualifications...
And to liberals, the only worse preparation for a political career than acting is working for an oil company, or basically holding ANY job.

To hear liberals tell it, doing nothing but government work is the only way to keep yourself "pure" of corruption. In my opinion - with the possible exception of organized crime - a lifetime of doing nothing but politics is the WORST "business" experience a candidate could have.

Charles Grodin (himself a flaming liberal) once remarked about how Reagan's career as a B-movie leading man proved how genuinely likeable he was. He said back in the day you didn't get roles like that through "star power", influence, or even talent. It was basically a bunch of moguls sitting around a conference room. After the script was greenlighted, almost as an afterthought, somebody would say, "So, who should we get to star in it?"

Someone else would go: "I dunno. How about Ronnie Reagan?" And everybody would say "Oh, yeah, sure, Ronnie. He's a great guy, let's let him do it." And then they'd move on to another order of business. They churned those movies out like crazy, and they couldn't afford to spend any time screwing around with temperamental actors. Reagan got the jobs precisely because he WASN'T a prima donna - he was easy to work with.

Fred Thompson's first acting role was playing HIMSELF as the litigator of a landmark case. Not surprisingly, he was a natural at it. The surprising part is that film makers liked his "character" so much they kept asking him to reprise it again and again in other roles.

There's nothing inherently evil about being a skillful actor - it helps the performance of anyone who speaks to the public; say, for example: the President.

Acting is a darned fun job, but doing what it takes to get into the business is often a very disgusting process. What's rotten about Hollywood isn't the acting itself; it's the pathetic, shallow, vain jerks who are so desperate for attention that they will do literally anything for a chance to fill their hopelessly empty personal lives with the fantasy of public idolation. In other words: the liberals.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Since Thompson quit L&O, I would hope he would join Vic Mackey's strikeforce team to replace Lem who got blown up by cowboy. The Shield could use another crooked donut chaser on its inner city douche crew.

[Lazarus]

Maybe the left like to ridicule the likes of Reagan and Thompson as actors first, because there are so very few actual actors in Hollywood these days... Maybe they have forgotten that a real actor is actually an effective public speaker... And if that person is a Conservative, that must be damned scarey to the left...

[Rhino]

I am reading on this man's voting record and some things dont seem to be adding up.

Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

but then....
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

I dont like that. Sounds fickle.And upon further research, he only voted against the amendment. I don't know what his vote on the actual bill was. But since the amendment passed, I would presume he also voted no on the bill. I would have. Also, it seems the "gun show loophole" wasn't the only problem. If you read the amendment itself, it would have made it illegal for a juvenile to possess a firearm for any reason, and illegal to give one to them, permanently or temporarily. So, no one would be able to go shooting or hunting with their kids ever again, unless they wanted to go to prison. Now I'm damned glad Thompson voted against it!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:2:./temp/~r106QInGpQ::

[Antigone]

Thanks. It wasn't the three strikes law. It was this:

As I suspected, this wasn't simply a vote on more penalties for gun & drug violations. It included the fictitious 'gun show loophole' I mentioned before, which presumably is why he voted against it. That's the problem with looking at simplistic lists of votes in Congress. The way these guys tack on amendments and multiple requirements into almost every bill, it's hard to tell exactly why someone may have voted for or against a bill sometimes. If that had been simply a vote on more penalties for gun & drug violations, with nothing else attached, I highly suspect he would have voted for it. In any case, this is obviously not fickled, as it first appeared to PrezLeefun. The votes are entirely consistent, and quite sensical.

I didn't read it all that closely, just skimmed it. Feel free to whup up on me! :noggin: :biggrin:

I see nothing wrong with his votes after reading your synopsis of what it was about.

[Rhino]

I wasn't whupping up on you. As I said, it's really hard to discern the real truth to these things sometimes. And if we are prone to it, just imagine how badly the general population is misinformed.

[Antigone]

The "general population" as a whole is stupid. How many times have we seen those "reporter on the street" segments where they show pictures of the President, VP, Sec State etc and 9 out of 10 people don't know who the heck they are? Don't get me started on the one's where they ask questions about the Constitution, D of I and such. I have to keep from throwing things at the TV everytime I see one of them. But by golly, they make sure they vote. It's their right doncha know.

And I know you weren't whupping up on me, hence the winky smilie. :)

[Republican_Legion]

I am reading on this man's voting record and some things dont seem to be adding up.

Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

but then....
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

I dont like that. Sounds fickle.

Thats good. That pretty much says Fred is against Gun Control and supports the constitutional second amendment.

[Republican_Legion]

"Sean Hannity doesn't seem too crazy about Fred Thompson either, but he's pretty heavily invested in Giuliani's campaign."--noncom

Why doesn't that surprise me. I used to like Hannity but he's a sellout and I now question his conservatism.

Hannity is from New York, enough said. :biggrin:
Rudy's from NewYork and that seems to be enough for Hannity.

[Lazarus]

As I said on another thread, not everyone on Fox is to be trusted... Many of them are mouthpieces for the other candidates who would be king... And by the same token we can expect all the mouthpieces to talk down to Fred Thompson...

[noncom]

As I said on another thread, not everyone on Fox is to be trusted...
In a poll several years ago, only 2% of Washington Bureau reporters had ever voted for a Republican Presidential candidate even ONCE in their entire lives. It's safe to say that only a fraction of that fraction are what any normal person would consider "conservative."

Even if Fox could have somehow recruited every conservative journalist in America, that's still not nearly enough to staff half of an entire news network. So it's obvious that most of them have to be faking it.

[Timberwolf]

HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.
...
HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN. HE'S IN.

Now maybe we can all come together.
Amen to that Lubbock...I was sick of arguing with like-minded friends.

[Maggie_T]

Hey, guys. Check out Mrs. Thompson.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/01/mail.jpg



Is she a babe, or what? The usual naysayers are already saying she will "hurt his chances" because she's too, ah, glamorous, and that will put some voters off. What voters? The usual bitter, jealous, feminazis? They wouldn't vote for Fred if his wife looked like Nancy Pelosi, anyway.

People are already starting to call her a "trophy wife." :rolleyes: Tropy wife, my you-know-what. To begin with, she's about 40. Secondly, is a woman a trophy wife just because she's much younger than her husband and a good-looking woman? Is that all it takes to make a woman a trophy wife? Lord, this pisses me off! :flame:

You should have heard the callers to Howie Carr. One said that she'll make a great fundraiser. He said he'd be willing to pay a lot of money just to sit next to her.

Another said that if Fred showed such acumen in choosing wife, he had no doubt he'd make good choices for the country.

LOL! It was hilarious. :biggrin:

Now seriously. Do you really think she'd "hurt his chances"? Jokes aside, now.

[MrSanity]

FDT would make a fine commander-in-chief.

And may I say, his wife is a babe.

[BEST45CAL]

****ed up dress. lol

Yeah, she is a trophy wife. He's old enough to be her father. I'm sure someone would pay to see them...


...bad beastie...bad:punish: :shame:

[M.C.]

His wife only makes him seem more manly and in my opinion, I'd probably vote him over the other fake republicans for that alone.

[MrSanity]

I think his wife is cute enough to win him the nomination.

[Maggie_T]

She is NOT a trophy wife. And she's not the one who's running for president, either. And it doesn't matter how many years there are between the two of them. :flame:

YOU GO, FRED!

[Rhino]

My wife is four years older than me. Does that make me a trophy husband?

I always wanted to be one of those.

[Rhino]

****ed up dress. lolIs this one more to your liking?

http://www.mererhetoric.com/images/jerithompson.jpg

[Rhino]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/sag/sag_awards_2004_photos/fred_thompson/sag.jpg

[Suzie]

I like older men. :naughty:

[Rhino]

Just being younger isn't a trophy wife, even significantly younger. A trophy wife is something for show, not unlike the sports cars some older men buy. Jeri is far from being a trophy showpiece. She's an attorney and a political media consultant at the Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, and McPherson law firm in Washington, D.C., and she once worked for the Senate Republican Conference and the Republican National Committee.

[Suzie]

People say they never see pictures of him smiling. So he looks like a tough guy ... which is good IMO, but if he's a man about to go on his honeymoon :lol: ;) ...

[Rhino]

I've seen him smile lots of times.

Trophy or not, she be good lookin.

[UnkHiram]

My wife is 9 years younger than me, can I tell her that she is a Trophy Wife?

[Suzie]

Yep, and be VERY proud of it. ;)

[dPrasse]

Amen to that Lubbock...I was sick of arguing with like-minded friends.

Amen !!

Run Fred Run !!

[M.C.]

I think Fred is the one candidate that can unite all us like-minded people. I agree with Timberwolf's quote. Seems like we have a uniter running. Hopefully he will make as great a president as we think he can be.

[Suzie]

Anyone watching Ann Coulter run down Fred on Hannity and Colmes right now? She is really blasting him bad. :mad: She obviously doesn't know how important this election is, and how bad Fred needs the support to win.

[TSawyer2112]

Anyone watching Ann Coulter run down Fred on Hannity and Colmes right now? She is really blasting him bad. :mad:

Fred reinforced my enthusiasm for his pending presidential candidacy. As for Ann, I am beginning to view her as the female model of Michael Savage. Both have shown that they are not necessarily the best spokespeople to articulate the conservative message.

[Suzie]

Fred reinforced my enthusiasm for his pending presidential candidacy. As for Ann, I am beginning to view her as the female model of Michael Savage. Both have shown that they are not necessarily the best spokespeople to articulate the conservative message.

Amen.

[noncom]

Anyone watching Ann Coulter run down Fred on Hannity and Colmes right now? She is really blasting him bad.
I guess it's understandable that Coulter might have a personal bone to pick over the Clinton vote; she was pretty involved in that impeachment.

But what was all that crap about how Thompson was only as conservative as he had to be to get elected in Tennessee? I looked it up: before Thompson won his seat (in a landslide), Tennessee had elected a grand total of FOUR Republican Senators in its entire history. He wasn't exactly taking the path of least resistance there!

And during that tirade, did anybody else catch that Coulter seems to be endorsing Giuliani? At least Hannity keeps saying his support is based on some weird electoral vote theory. But Coulter seemed to be claiming that Giuliani is somehow more of a "real" conservative because he came from a liberal state.

And, since I ended up watching the whole episode: What the Hell is Fox doing giving huge chunks of free advertising to The View -- a show that's on ANOTHER NETWORK? Politics, shmalitics, that's just plain stupid.

[Republican_Legion]

Anyone watching Ann Coulter run down Fred on Hannity and Colmes right now? She is really blasting him bad. :mad: She obviously doesn't know how important this election is, and how bad Fred needs the support to win.

I think Anne Coulter caught the Romney Disease.

She's stubborn. She doesnt want to surrender her support of Romney.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I couldn't care less who Ann Coulter, or any other conservative pundit supports (and yes, that includes Mr. Limbaugh, regardless of how much I respect his opinion and personal perspective).

I will be doing my OWN research, thank you very much, and I intend to vote for the BEST candidate (as opposed to the better-than-the-other-guy candidate), not the lesser-of-two evils, and NOT to just be voting "against the other guy/gal".

[Suzie]

I guess it's understandable that Coulter might have a personal bone to pick over the Clinton vote; she was pretty involved in that impeachment.

But what was all that crap about how Thompson was only as conservative as he had to be to get elected in Tennessee? I looked it up: before Thompson won his seat (in a landslide), Tennessee had elected a grand total of FOUR Republican Senators in its entire history. He wasn't exactly taking the path of least resistance there!

And during that tirade, did anybody else catch that Coulter seems to be endorsing Giuliani? At least Hannity keeps saying his support is based on some weird electoral vote theory. But Coulter seemed to be claiming that Giuliani is somehow more of a "real" conservative because he came from a liberal state.

And, since I ended up watching the whole episode: What the Hell is Fox doing giving huge chunks of free advertising to The View -- a show that's on ANOTHER NETWORK? Politics, shmalitics, that's just plain stupid.

How was she anymore involved in Clinton's impeachment than any other American? Just because she was trying to sell people what she thought of it? I am with Homes on this what difference does her opinion make on the operations of our government? Or anyone else's opinion for that matter. It doesn't accomplish anything with the impeachment .... just what people thought of it, heck the impeachment didn't really accomplish anything because Clinton wasn't man enough to do what he should have done after he received it. So it doesn't help those situations. But it can hurt a candidate with her fans.

But the problem is Coulter will influence those who seem to live and breathe whatever this woman spills out. There are some that just wait for every breath she takes and are following behind to lap it up. She will hurt Thompson with the people who don't think for themselves and have to pay her to do it for them.

She is probably supporting Guliani because Hannity is. Hannity the only one that gives her any air time anymore. I hope no one else does until after the election or Thompson is going to need to damage control all her sound bites which are always particularly nasty like last night, and those are already out there.

[omegatrump]

My vote is still out on him, he seems nice enough and Law and Order is going to go to hell with him gone, but I think a lot of people want him just because he reminds them of Reagan, old and actor and republican. Other than that what do we really know about him?


I'm with you on this one. I had some hope in Fred, but now I see who he is wrapping himself in and I am not so sure. If the Bush camp comes in like a flood on this guy, and all the trappings of Republican business as usual shapes up. Sianar.

I see in the early reports a troublesome trend. I think it's Constitution party for me.

I will give it more time before making up my mind.

[omegatrump]

"Sean Hannity doesn't seem too crazy about Fred Thompson either, but he's pretty heavily invested in Giuliani's campaign."--noncom

Why doesn't that surprise me. I used to like Hannity but he's a sellout and I now question his conservatism.


Hannity is a sell out, no question about it.

[hdmundt]

I liked very-much what I heard from Thompson last night. Not a speck of equivocation. It's early yet, but if there is some way to get Thompson/Tancredo at the top, that represents a much more acceptable tandem than anything else I've seen, so far. Thompson explained his Clinton impeachment vote; I didn't think it was a very strong argument, but he explained his thinking. And, as disappointed as I am in her response, Coulter has a point with respect to that vote. Thompson's Committee On Governmental Affairs got the goods on Clinton, but did not press for indictments of Clinton 'n cronies. Granted, he would not have gotten much support had he done so, and fighting the Clinton/Reno Justice Department would likely have ended badly, but he was paid to take the tough decisions and do what was needed. This aside, I'm really encouraged by Thompson's straight talk and his seemingly unfliching support of the war on terrorism. (Hmmmm. I think I remember posting this same "straight talk" sentiment about GWB some years ago...........)

[Maggie_T]

I heard Ann last night. She was not exactly blasting Fred Thimpson. He's just not her choice, that's all. And she was saying why.

I've said a lot of things against Rudi, McCain, and that imbecile Ron Paul, that would certainly NOT endear me to their supporters.

Thompson is still my candidate. Especially after he made it clear that he does not support the part of the McCain-Feingold outrage that prevents cmapaign adds 60 days before the election.

Although I must say that last night, the winner of the debate was Rudi Giuliani. Damn him. :evilgrin:

[Suzie]

There is some good stuff on this over at the Draft Fred board for those of you who are members. Just do a search for Coulter. Lots of mad folks over there too.

[noncom]

I liked very-much what I heard from Thompson last night. Not a speck of equivocation.
I was frankly amazed at how quick Thompson said he'd pardon Libby. This is a man of conviction: he knows full well he will be attacked for saying this, but even though he can't do a thing about it (no one on Earth except Bush can), Thompson is willing to say what he believes.

Not only is Bush doing nothing about this; he had a lot to do with STARTING this whole mess in the first place. Clinton's "pardons for dollars" program has been completely swept under the rug. But the Libby affair is the exact sort of case that the concept of executive pardon was made for: putting a stop to a judicial crusade.


This aside, I'm really encouraged by Thompson's straight talk and his seemingly unfliching support of the war on terrorism. (Hmmmm. I think I remember posting this same "straight talk" sentiment about GWB some years ago...........)
I guess I missed all that Bush "straight talking" before he took office. As I recall, George Bush has always been borderline aphasic any time he's not talking about the war on terror, and that didn't start until 9/11.

BTW, does anyone here know whether George Bush is even capable of pronouncing the word "federalism," let alone speaking coherently on the subject? Until I get some verification on that, I'm afraid I can't take any comparisons between him and Thompson seriously.

[BaronKelan]

I watched the "debate" (no more CNN debates, please) and H&C afterwards. I was also surprised by AC not accepting what Fred Thompson gave as his reasons for his votes on McCain-Feingold and impeachment. As a guy at work always reminds me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - even when they're wrong.

By the way, I went to the ImWithFred website. It's a start. I hope it does well and vaults him to the head of the pack. I signed up as a supporter. Everything I've read or heard from him makes him my choice over the other 10 Republicans out there.

[MrSanity]

She (Ann Coulter) is probably supporting Guliani because Hannity is. Hannity the only one that gives her any air time anymore. I hope no one else does until after the election or Thompson is going to need to damage control all her sound bites which are always particularly nasty like last night, and those are already out there.Let me clear something up...

In this video, from her speech at CPAC, she stresses that Giuliani is "very liberal" and although he did some good things for New York, she points out his long "list of minuses."

Coulter has been a Romney Girl from this point on, as far as I can tell.

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

[Suzie]

I don't trust the abortion flip flopper either . At least we know Guiliani has always supported it. How do we know he won't change his view again.

I believe they think Rudy is going to win, so they don't want to jump too far from his bandwagon or they can't make any money for their opinion as a conservative and he is the GOP winner if he does win it if they have been bad mouthing him and have to switch gears. I hope they are disappointed all the way around on that one.

[Lazarus]

...Although I must say that last night, the winner of the debate was Rudi Giuliani. Damn him. :evilgrin:That doesnt suprise me - Giuliani is an outstanding orator and communicator... That's why he is so well liked by the weak-minded who dont stand on principle... If Giuliani was a true conservative he'd be unstoppable...

But fear not, my dear... Once Fred Thompson officially enters this campaign, when the real debates start, no one will be able to stand up to him...

[noncom]

That doesnt suprise me - Giuliani is an outstanding orator and communicator...
Actually, not even really so much of that. A little bit of Giuliani goes a long way. That accent and brashly irritating manner both work well in New York City, but I think the rest of the country would get tired of him pretty darned quick once the real attention of a general election kicked in.

But fear not, my dear... Once Fred Thompson officially enters this campaign, when the real debates start, no one will be able to stand up to him...
There is no doubt in my mind that Thompson can squash any liberal in a debate. (Although I'm not sure the term "real" debate can be applied to anything that we've seen on TV in the past 40 years...)

But we haven't yet seen too much of Thompson fielding "questions" (i.e. paragraph-long personal attacks) from the liberal media. That's a highly specialized skill that has very little to do with intelligence or oratory abilities.

I don't have any problem with Thompson. All I ask is a genuine conservative with genuine charisma (as opposed to the plastic varity.) And Thompson fills that bill. My only real "fear" stems from the fact that I have so many hopes tied up in one guy this early in the process.

[Suzie]

True. And Thompson has been solid on abortion. I can't imagine supporting someone who has been known to support abortion in the past over someone who never has just because of an impeachment vote that didn't amount to anything anyway.

Let's see ... has supported murder in the past ... or NEVER supported murder but didn't vote to remove a President that would have given us AL GORE instead if he left ... assuming he would be man enough to leave office ... and he didn't. I really don't get it, that goes against even being called a conservative.

Fred Thompson filled Al Gore's office remember, he probably knows a lot more scary things about him than we have ever heard.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

All I ask is a genuine conservative with genuine charisma (as opposed to the plastic varity.) And Thompson fills that bill. My only real "fear" stems from the fact that I have so many hopes tied up in one guy this early in the process.


:yeahthat: Now with THIS I can absolutely agree! :thumb:


http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/rollinge.gif BTW, here's what NY's think about Senator Thompson,

Like Reagan Without the New Ideas (http://www.observer.com/2007/reagan-without-new-ideas)

[noncom]

BTW, here's what NY's think about Senator Thompson, Like Reagan Without the New Ideas (http://www.observer.com/2007/reagan-without-new-ideas)
Actually, that's what the New York Observer thinks of Fred Thompson. If you're going by the opinions expressed by liberal media rags, our only hope for salvation is to try and convince Hillary Clinton to run as a Republican.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Actually, that's what the New York Observer thinks of Fred Thompson. If you're going by the opinions expressed by liberal media rags, our only hope for salvation is to try and convince Hillary Clinton to run as a Republican.

I was being sarcastic. I realize it was an op-ed piece. Sheesh, forgive me, I'll never agree with you again http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/rollinge.gif !

[Suzie]

I've seen him smile lots of times.

Trophy or not, she be good lookin.


He does usually have a "picture face" though. Me and my dad do that. :lol: This is a good one of him. :D

[Lazarus]

...There is no doubt in my mind that Thompson can squash any liberal in a debate. (Although I'm not sure the term "real" debate can be applied to anything that we've seen on TV in the past 40 years...)Well I admit I use the term lightly - I meant that these current pre-primary debates are nothing more than media outlets all trying to one-up the others in a time when news stories are slack... They are creating media events to fill air time...

None of the debates have any meaning till the primary season actually starts - And honestly, I get the feeling that eveyone is still waiting anxiously for Thompson to enter the scene - The media is practically salivating over it... And when that happens, all these previous debates will fade to insignificance...

But we haven't yet seen too much of Thompson fielding "questions" (i.e. paragraph-long personal attacks) from the liberal media. That's a highly specialized skill that has very little to do with intelligence or oratory abilities.True... I spose we'll find out, wont we...

...My only real "fear" stems from the fact that I have so many hopes tied up in one guy this early in the process.Its the best hope we have... But I still believe he's gonna run away with it... He's what the public is hungry for - Someone who engenders confidence - Something America is desperate for - A president we can trust...

His “elder statesman” screen persona obscures the fact he is the most inexperienced of the major G.O.P. contenders, with seven dimly remembered years as U.S. Senator, no area of expertise, no executive experience and no major legislative achievements bearing his name.And to that I say, Just what have all the others done with all their experience and vast resume's?...

Reminds me of that scene in I Claudius when Claudius first assumed the title of Caesar and was answering his critics who said he was not qualified because he was a half-wit... He said, "I would like to point out that I have survived longer with HALF of my wits than many others who have died with ALL their's in tact... Clearly quality of wits is more important than quantity..."

I say its time we have a plain-talking, common sense leader who has America's interest at heart - not those of activists and special interest groups...

Its time we elected a Statesman to the office instead of career politician...

[wilson1]

:yeahthat: Now with THIS I can absolutely agree! :thumb:


http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/rollinge.gif BTW, here's what NY's think about Senator Thompson,

Like Reagan Without the New Ideas (http://www.observer.com/2007/reagan-without-new-ideas)


WHAT?? No New Deal, Square Deal, or Great Society??? No grandiose large-scale social engineering? No commitment to “social justice?”
<O:p</O:p
The left and the leftist historians are just so in love with activist presidencies. The left just sooo doesn’t “get” us. Obviously poor listeners…

[dajoga]

Once Fred Thompson officially enters this campaign, when the real debates start, no one will be able to stand up to him...

"Real debates?" Ha--I wish Fred would step up and say he'll only participate in a "real debate" not the flim-flams we've seen in the last two prez elections.

BTW, I wonder how many change their mind solely on the debates?

[noncom]

"Real debates?" Ha--I wish Fred would step up and say he'll only participate in a "real debate" not the flim-flams we've seen in the last two prez elections.

BTW, I wonder how many change their mind solely on the debates?
I think those two go together. If Fred keeps "changing the rules," he'll generate a lot more interest in the process.

A lot of people out there see this extra year of primaries as a farce. The politicians who whore themselves out on these endless tag-team soundbite contests make themselves look like nothing more than participants in a particularly boring reality TV show - and we all know how popular those clowns are once their fifteen minutes runs out.

There is nothing that shows leadership more than showing you are above the fray. We're ALREADY seeing people ignore debates Thompson's not in, and tune in to hear him alone instead of a crowd of talking heads. If he steps into first place in the Republican Primary, he'll have a lot of leverage to call the shots about how the rest of the campaign is covered. Taking advantage of that from the beginning will give him a lot of momentum by the time the real campaign starts.

One of Reagan's biggest strengths, beyond his personal charisma, was his savvy - his understanding of how the media works, and how to make liberals dance to his tune back when they owned the media. It's still early, but it's starting to look like Thompson may have a knack for doing that same thing in the Information Age.

[MrSanity]

WHAT?? No New Deal, Square Deal, or Great Society??? No grandiose large-scale social engineering? No commitment to “social justice?”
<O:p</O:p
The left and the leftist historians are just so in love with activist presidencies. The left just sooo doesn’t “get” us. Obviously poor listeners…Somehow, I'm turned off by anyone who tries to outdo the Great Leap Forward.

What I could most certainly prefer is a Great MYOB Deal.

It worked well in the Roaring Twenties for Coolidge and Harding.

[wilson1]

Somehow, I'm turned off by anyone who tries to outdo the Great Leap Forward.

What I could most certainly prefer is a Great MYOB Deal.

It worked well in the Roaring Twenties for Coolidge and Harding.

Amen. Coolidge was someone Reagan respected and reflected on.

[Rhino]

He does usually have a "picture face" though. Me and my dad do that. :lol: This is a good one of him. :DAny "Friends" fans here? This reminds me of that episode when they were trying to get Chandler to smile for his wedding announcement pictures.

[Lazarus]

...One of Reagan's biggest strengths, beyond his personal charisma, was his savvy - his understanding of how the media works, and how to make liberals' dance to his tune back when they owned the media. It's still early, but it's starting to look like Thompson may have a knack for doing that same thing in the Information Age.Exactly... Reagan took charge before he even had the Whitehouse... And after he was elected he set simple but strict rules of behavior for the Whitehouse press corps - To Sam Donaldson's chagrin... :biggrin:

I hope to see Thompson taking charge in this same way... I agree with dajoga about the debates becoming media circuses, but that's because the candidates dance to the media's tune... Reagan didnt do it - Reagan took charge and set the mood and pace of the debates... Thompson has the ability to do just that...