Fred Thompson: Here's Why...
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[updated:at the request of jbonham76 (a long-time member of this community and an unpaid Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee)I clarify a point with a clarifier.
I am being told to believe that the website I reference in this piece is not affiliated with the Romney campaign. I have no more proof than jbonham of this, but I don't live near him so I give jbonham his first request-I retract any stated or implied accusation that the slash and tear website is officially affiliated with Romney. To the second, I say BS.
Every campaign...EVERY campaign finds the output of their zealots and their "bots" and any work they do on their own very useful, doubly so when they can disavow any affiliation with, or involvement in the work they do. Trust me on this-EVERY campaign.
Jman...I respond to your innuendo about my being thin-skinned in your comment below.]
The Thompson candidacy is coming together. As we speak, his team is getting organized, getting ready, and getting busy. Waving off "the previously reported July 4th date, saying it would be "presumptuous," even "over the top" to "think our news is more important than the nation's birthday," Thompson appears ready to formally announce his intentions in the "first half of July."
He's working on the organization, the campaign infrastructure, and fundraising. And, he's gearing himself up for the "guerilla war" he is about to engage.
Becoming number 11, give or take, to stand up for a challenge to be beaten battered and bloodied and cut to the bone by the media and the opposition and his fellow Republicans, and STILL be the last man standing, Thompson appears ready willing and able to look us all in the eye and say "bring it on."
I have frequently used the term "Field of Dreams" when discussing the candidates thus far with their hats already in the ring, but for a whole host of reasons I think Thompson's Stetson is JUST what I've been waiting for to make that statement real rather than rhetorical.
Consider the current field, and their "flexibility of principle" as they have busied themselves with the early rounds of empty promises and oft-times unsubstantiated claims against their opponents:
I'm as much of a Conservative as you need me to be in order for you to give me your vote and your campaign contribution. I'm only so much of a Conservative as you can stomach to give me your vote, even if you have to hold your nose to do it.
These are the candidates that parade themselves and their "wares" in front of us right now.
I'm deeply disappointed in the outgoing President, to be sure, but I have no fevered pitch of enthusiasm for what lies ahead in the current field either. John McCain is not a team player, and even though he wears the term "maverick" as a badge of honor, going his own way and doing just whatever the hell it is he wants to please himself...EVEN if it will be at MY expense and that of any OTHER who may vote for him. A McCain presidency is unacceptable to me.
Mitt Romney touts his executive experience at the helm of the second-most Liberal state (er Commonwealth) in the land, all the while insisting he is the only "true" Conservative in the field. Chief executive of a State as Gay rights activists furthered (and ultimately succeeded in making law) a move to legalize Gay Marriage and redefine what Marriage is all together runs counter to being a "true conservative." Implementing mandatory government-inflicted insurance on the people of Massachusetts seems contra-indicative of "true conservative" principles and ideologies as well. Discovering his pro-life ideals ONLY after coming to know of the thousands of fetuses routinely destroyed in "stem cell factories" when he could have found his pro life footing coming to appreciate the deaths of thousands of innocents already in-utero and killed just the same leaves me feeling nauseous as I stare at a man who seems to find a LOT of Conservative footing at the discovery of some new-found political expediency revelation. A Romney presidency is unacceptable to me.
Rudy Giuliani is as Conservative as Hillary Clinton - equally as willing to use Government to solve problems, equally as willing to let Families and unborn children fall prey to the prevailing will of the most radically "progressive" among us, with no forethought for the future of generations as yet unborn. His unapologetic refusal to back even the slightest bit away from his pro choice positions of the past gives him brownie points for sticking to his guns, but by no means does it make him a Conservative. Couple this with his positions on Gay rights, gun control, and immigration, and I am left looking at a man forever my 9/11 hero, and offering a presidency that is unacceptable to me.
In all fairness to these men, perhaps McCain could be "Conservative enough". Perhaps Romney or Giuliani as well. Perhaps I have them all wrong. Perhaps.
Certainly, any of these three will get my vote over the unnatural disasters that await us from the Democrat candidate list. Sadly, as has been the case all too frequently of late, I will hold my nose and vote for anyone who is NOT them.
Whatever may be true or false about these so-called "top-tiered" candidates, I can't square any of them in my mind with the media hype and the campaign rhetoric. Neither can I find in any of the three a consistent theme in their promises and their rhetoric to reassure me that they will not only ESPOUSE Conservative principles and practices, but that they will CALL these things Conservative and be unapologetic for having done so.
The issues that are unfolding for the Presidential elections in 2008 are becoming blurred; waters muddied by competitiveness and aspiration. 17 months out, the insider work to tear asunder the opposition is at a fever pitch while the specifics continue to fade to black. But we REALLY DO have problems that Conservative ideals will go a whole lot further in fixing than the Liberal ones being offered up from the Left.
When I came across this Romney-affiliated anti-Fred wiki site it hit me just how much it speaks volumes about where Republicans are as a Party, and where they're headed over the next year plus. You have to ask yourself one of two questions. Does this guy (Encyclopedia Mittanica) have nothing better to do? OR...Why is so much slash and tear energy being expended on a currently NON-candidate? How about, given this is pre-primary season, we spend a smidgeon more time talking UP what we believe in, what we think has gone wrong, and what principles and ideals we fundamentally believe will right the wrongs of the past instead of focusing on "I suck less, he sucks more."
I am amazed by something ELSE in Romney's "hit" parade of potshots and attacks on Fred the non-candidate. WAY down at the bottom of the page is a quote from, of all people, Peggy Noonan:
"Why shouldn’t liberalism get a shot? Could they mess up more? Why should we trust Republicans with foreign affairs?"
Of course, I could debate the quote itself, but the question I ask myself is "why would a pro-Romney page use such a quote to take a shot at a REPUBLICAN opponent?" Where, exactly, is the logic in that? I see it as just a bit too enthusiastic in going after Fred...to the point that Romney's insistence that he is the true conservative on the Republican side comes into even MORE serious question. How much Moderate Republican or Liberal Republican is he really hiding behind that curtain?
I have come to terms with the reality that the Democrats won a MUCH larger victory last year than the number of seats they now hold in our "House of Commons" up on the Hill. What they also accomplished was MAKING Conservatives and Republicans mean the same thing. Then, they set about convincing the world that Republicans were the cause of all our ills and in order to solve them the Republicans would have to go, and ostensibly the Conservatives among us would have to go right along with them and their dirty bathwater. Rather than convincing Americans that Liberalism was the ideology of choice, they merely convinced enough of us that Conservatism was NOT. The electorate has bought in to this approach; satisfied to pick things which are less bad rather than supporting something in which they can believe and be inspired by, the dumbing down of American voters continues unabated.
My ideology espouses the belief that all life is sacred, and should be defended with every resource at our disposal. My ideology holds to the notion that we are but a small part of something much bigger, and that we have freedoms and liberties and rights that are endowed by our creator that can not be taken away or interfered with by a "government." My ideology considers the founding documents penned by our forefathers to be sacrosanct and intended to guide us in our daily life and in our national interest. I also believe in the rule of law, and in national sovereignty, and in expecting our Federal Government to focus its energies on preserving these things. The powers given to the "some several states" were assigned for a reason; the Federal Government is incapable of addressing each and every item of minutiae with anything but interference and ineptitude and incompetence. ALL Politics, after all, is local.
Why then do we find candidates from both sides pimping THEIR best methods for getting Government to solve our problems, when Government is the BIGGEST of problems on any reasoned and well-thought out list? Why, too, do ANY Republican candidates think selling "Conservatism by any other name so as to not offend" is really going to be a winning strategy? We KNOW the ideology will best suit the needs of the country, but they can't actually SAY this because America has been convinced all things Conservative is evil...after all, Romney's own quote from Noonan says as much. How stupid ARE these guys? Do they REALLY want to lose, and make all of us drift even FARTHER into the wilderness? Sheesh.
Look. I admit I have Frothing Fredhead Disease™. There, I am outed. But really now, which guy sounds MORE like the one describing the ills and offering Conservative means to address them unapologetically, and which ones whisper the "c" word, and offer NON-Conservative answers?
We may lose this thing in '08-to a Democrat nutcase, or a Conservative in name only, (forever dubbed CINO™) but for now...at least one of them believes in it and means it, and doesn't plan on apologizing about it, or shrinking from it in the face of moderates and liberals - Democrat ones and Republican ones alike.
Thompson may have never been a Governor, or a lifer Senator, or a post-9/11 hero. He may not have been or done MANY things with his life that others HAVE. He may or may not have have done many things expertly or incompetently or not at all. This fairly well describes all of us in any number of ways, cumulatively, over a lifetime.
The reason Thompson is the guy, is precisely because he is not the other guys. And, he is far more willing to jump in the mud after that greasy little pig and get a little dirty while he's at it. Whatever else he has or has not done, he knows the field, knows the game, and knows the rules. If the current top three are already this scared, Fred must know a whole heck of a lot more than these guys want you to find out about.
Don't mess with Texas and (Fred) Thompson.
I'm in Texas, you "appear" to be in Texas...I am organizing in Texas, and if you are interested, click thru to "contact"
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I will either be in Tyler, San Antonio or moving back to Chicago, depending on the salary offers within the next couple of weeks. But if I'm there, I'd love to get together some organization.
Don't mess with Texas and (Fred) Thompson.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
if you HAD included commentary on him I would have chided you for wasting RS bandwidth. :>0
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
your reason why just sounds weaker than what I expect from you.
You write "The reason Thompson is the guy, is precisely because he is not the other guys."
I think you can write better reasons than this. I mean it's almost like 2006 when the appeal was to vote for the Republican because he is not the other guy. That works for the die-hard base of the party, but to win better reasons have got to be obvious for the independent minded voters too.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
to begin laying out quotes and positions and histories to compare and contrast the candidates within this piece would have taken 3,000 more words...which ARE in draft but I felt they belonged in a subsequent post.
I promise a follow up with specifics...
but point taken, and thank you.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
In baseball parlance this was a bloop single over the 1st baseman's outstretched glove. I know those kind of hits count so the cleanup hitter can make his home run more meaningful. You can bring the home run story later. I know you can.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I respect you as a poster and a fellow conservative, and acknowledge you suffer from Frothy Freadhead Disease, but including a disclaimer in your post that you suffer from Fredhead Disease does not excuse your deliberate and innacurate conflation of facts. It may justify a tirade of obnoxious bagging on other candidates just to make your opinion quadruply clear, but it does not validate you misattributing statements and actions of other frothy headed supporters to the candidates themselves.
The Encyclopedia Mittanica is not "affiliated" with the Romney campaign as you claim. It was put up by one individual, a frothy headed Romney supporter that took the effort on himself, not some "insider" job as you claim without any support. Before he put up the Fred wiki, he filled up literally volumes of webspace on a similar, but more supportive page, of Romney. . . I have long since refrained from asking if he has nothing better to do, because apparently he doesn't. So what? There are collective gentlemen and intense zealots among the supporters of every candidate. I think your boy Fred can handle the heat, don't you?
But you weren't done there. You took another leap into the outfield to attribute the aforementioned wiki to the candidate himself, suggesting the Noonan quote comes directly from Romney . . . part of his "hit parade," Romney's "own quote". Nice. For the sake of preserving a shred of intellectual honesty, you might want to dedicate a moment to separating the words and actions of the candidate himself from the incessant weblogs of a twenty-something yr old Mitthead sitting at a computer screen with extra time on his hands . . . Romney the candidate has not gone one iota negative on his opponents, and has responded to attacks, both personal and political, with graciousness and aplomb. Please let me know if you find anything questionable in his conduct (as opposed to the conduct of a few motivated Mittheads) with regard to the other candidates, including your boy Fred. In the meantime, don't lay your grievances at his feet when they don't belong there.
The hubris is quite shocking, really. In an appeal to fellow conservatives to de-emphasize the negative of other candidates and focus on the positives of their guy, you manage to drop multiple paragraphs of ad hominem bombs on the other candidates. Your post above unabashedley argues support for Fred out of a distaste for the others. I suggest you take your own advice and stick to emphasizing Fred's positives. It might save you some time.
I am ready to refine and clarify this post if you can show me proof that Romney (and the other campaigns - including what is sure to come from Fred's) do not employ oppo wars against each other using plausible deniability. I doubt you can, so I'll meet you half way.
I did not mean to suggest this:
suggesting the Noonan quote comes directly from Romney
What I DID suggest was that the campaign is affiliated with these oppo attacks in ways they can easily deny, and given that premise, the Noonan quote "from Romney" was out of place and really just plain dumb.
Remove the premise that the campaigns employ these tactics, and we will take a different tack...though you can't really disporove the notion-trust me-this goes on EVERYWHERE.
My hubris is MINE. I feel this way about the other campaigns, and I can fairly well associate rationale for one candidate as I contrast them from those who decry superiority...with which I personally disagree.
I am sorry I tickled your whiskers about what appears to be your guy..and as I promised upthread, I will certainly continue with Fred positives...I believe I gave these 3 men credit where credit was due while I also indicated my specific reasons for finding their primary candidacies unacceptable. I also believe I indicated that any of the three would get my vote in the general against a Dem...
I don't know what else you want from me-all "Fred is wonderful" all the time makes for some pretty hollow, kumbaya writing, don't ya think?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
You seem upset at the idea of Fred being disparaged AS you disparage the rest of the field...
Although from reading the info from following that link I can see why you are so upset. I'm not sure why you are associating it with Romney though, that would be like like saying that FRedstate, I mean Redstate is associated Fred's campaign, did I miss some paid association or something? "The Truth About Flipper - The Real Mitt RINO Romney"... now for the title of the home page, I kind of doubt Mitt would be paying the guy.
He did have a few pics of Rudy that made me chuckle though, I didn't bother looking at the McCain stuff because I just don't care.
Come on, Fred's even getting a free ride from the MSM for the most part, compare his coverage to Rudy's. Hey you yourself just compared him to Hillary... Can you imagine how you're going to feel when and if the front page guys start linking to articles in Rolling Stone about Fred and calling them hard hitting political reporting or some other offensive fabrication?
"If the current top three are already this scared, Fred must know a whole heck of a lot more than these guys want you to find out about."
I dunno buddy, somehow seeing words like these coming from you makes me wonder at my lack of excitement at it all and I'm not so sure it's "our" side even that's doing most of the dirty work.
Well I hope Fred runs, I'd like to see him add to the debate. I would also like to see his supporters do more of what they say, not what they do...(wink wink)
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I think you misinterpret the point here. Not only am I unconcerned with Fred being disparaged (given I openly suggest he enters the race knowing full well he is going to be bloodied and cleaved), but I rather think the whole technique being employed here in the primaries is counterproductive.
AND-if I did NOT give reasons why I did NOT like the other candidates, how else would I have articulated the premises under which I believe a Thompson campaign is better suited for what I WANT TO SEE FROM THE NEXT PRESIDENT?
I DO find the innuendo about Fredstate a little comical-if you had a conversation with the bulk of the Redstate contributors, you would find this is FAR from the case...but that aside. What you are seeing here lately is a collective site-wide appeal for a candidate that DOESN'T make us look for balance between the things they say that make us mad and the things that inspire us.
Not sure if you are a Romney guy, but it is clear that you missed a big part of my point...what I would like to see is our candidates talk about Conservatism and how we can bring it back to this country, and how THEY as president will make that happen-not whether Romney is a mormon, or Fred's wife is half his age, or whether Rudy has been married multiple times.
I stuck to policy and principles these 3 men espouse that run counter to my beliefs in Conservative first principles.
I did none of what you suggest in your comment.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
But you gotta admit. I think a lot of readers are starting to suspect this...
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I'm with you 'stack, but consider this... Gingrich would appear to be unelectable on his own as a presidential candidate.
I think Fred and Newt would make for a ticket that is just the ticket to restore our core conservative values to the Republican party. Not only that, but the fact that Newt has made substantial proposals, and Fred, if he turns out to be the communicator I hope he is, could transform the entire election!
”A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical”. -- THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787
haystack says-> "The reason Thompson is the guy, is precisely because he is not the other guys."
I don't agree with that statement because there are six other candidates who could be the anti Rudy McRomney. There is more to the Thompson candidacy than just being "none of the above".
The reason Fred Thompson has jumped to the top is primarily due to the fact that he has run one of the best non-campaign campaigns in modern history. Lets be honest..Fred has been running for months. He says the right things, appeals to a large cross section of voters, and most of all, Fred has gravitas.
The republican nomination is Fred Thompson's to lose.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
tell him to get off his butt and into the debates so we can hear what he would do as president. Right now...hes just a face.
...but if Thompson is still only "a face" to you, and you are unaware of his positions you need to come out of your cave and join the rest of us in the world.
Fred Thompson post's columns regularly over at Townhall.com. If you go to ABC Radio's web site, you will see he has a page over there where he does the "Thompson Report" DAILY. He also fills in for Paul Harvey too. You can subscribe to the pod casts and get the audio of the past month while you are there. You can go to YouTube and watch a half dozen of his recent speeches. He did a few post here at Red State as well.
In short, if you put ANY effort into googling him, you will find a lot of material. The only reason why he should still be "a face" is because you are not paying attention, or like me sometimes, I get way too busy to keep up. It is there for the offering if you want it.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Don't get be wrong, I like him and will support him if he's our guy, but I simply don't see him being "Reaganesque" at this point. He's saying all the right things, I think he is right on pretty much every issue. His speeches, however, seem slow and rambling a bit right now. He doesn't look like he has a whole lot of energy out there either. Compare this to Reagan's speeches - they were impassioned, to the point, and energetic. He spoke clearly and didn't "poke around" as Thompson sometimes does. Again, I really do like him, but I need to see some more spark for me to really support him. I want to see him debating and being challenged a little bit too.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I wrote recently that I don't WANT another Reagan. As good as he was, these are not the times Reagan would have done as well as he did then. Times are changed, events are different, the climate in America is not the same-we don't even need a NEW Reagan....we need a President and a Statesman and a Leader and someone ready to get in your face and tell you...NOT what they think you want to hear, but what NEEDS to be said.
I see that in Thompson...I don't see it in the others in the so-called top tier. It's going to take him being in the race to prove me wrong...but I don't think he will.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
......you want another Reagan. =)
There are two ways to define "Reaganesque" - by harkening to the policies that RWR espoused, which is what a lot of people seem to assume; or by harkening to the qualities that stood behind those policies - optimism, firmness, and simple and direct communication.
The Ronald Reagan of 1980, or even 1988 would not be right for the United States of 2007. But his personal qualities - his good nature, his ability to connect with the average American, and his belief in the "rightness" of America as an example to the world, should always be "in style." If only we could have more people with those qualities (in both parties) we'd probably all be better off.
But Thompson seems....well....boring right now. His speeches sometimes lull me to sleep. Again, he's SAYS the right things, and that's what really counts, but charisma goes a long way. I'm not really seeing much of the hyped charisma out of Fred right now.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Ooh, that episode of Law and Order is on right now:
"It took 3000 dead Americans to get the politicians off their butts." -- Arthur Branch on the FISA portions of USA PATRIOT.
It's just so hard to separate the man from the character when he argues so well :-)
Run like Reagan!
What does Fred have that Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee don't have?
I can't figure it out.
Is it the acting experience?
That's an easy question. Thompson looks weird (a cheesehead shar-pei), and if I don't know the other three the average Nov 2008 voter has probably never heard of them.
"The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."
Rep Sam Johnson on the House floor commenting on his experience as a Vietnam POW
"What does Fred have that Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee don't have?"
Name ID and gravitas.
Don't get me wrong, I would be perfectly comfortable with Jim Gilmore as president, but Tommy Thompson, Brownback, and Huckabee all have flaws that conservatives would find worrisome.
Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas, Brownback supports the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill, and Tommy Thompson is a big government republican.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
Because of your wildly inaccurate statement of:
Chief executive of a State as Gay rights activists furthered (and ultimately succeeded in making law) a move to legalize Gay Marriage and redefine what Marriage is all together runs counter to being a "true conservative.
That is not even close to reality, or how things happened in MA. And I suspect you know that as well. Governor Romney fought Gay Marriage tooth and nail, and anyone who read a newspaper back then knows this to be a fact. He didn't ask for that fight, but he fought it nonetheless.
But here's what I was going to say. Rather than get into a spitting match with FredHeads, my strongest argument against Fred is Fred himself. Not the Fred of 1994, but the Fred of last week. Have you actually seen Fred speak? Uhhhhhhhh.....ummmmmm.....what makes him ummmmmm.....uhhhhhh... a good uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh communicator?
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/c39fa860-a308-4d97-89c2-5531692f8c4b?comm...
Certainly, Mr. Romney's latter defense of marriage was very admirable and articulate. However, it was his earlier statement in a letter (while trying to get elected in Mass.) that left some scratching their head ("“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,”).
This at best provides some de facto approval for a more comprehensive agenda; certainly observable in the reaction from the GR lobby once his position was "clarified".
There is no issue amonst many with his current stance, he has become a very outspoken proponent of traditional marriage. nonetheless to say the GM lobby was not initially encouraged by his statements is misleading. Your "wildly innacurate" is therefore questionable, at best.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I said:
Chief executive of a State as Gay rights activists furthered (and ultimately succeeded in making law) a move to legalize Gay Marriage and redefine what Marriage is all together runs counter to being a "true conservative."
He WAS Chief Executive then,no?
Did I say ANYWHERE that he didn't fight it and resist it?
No.
We have a President today that is flat out NOT taking no for an answer on immigration...and he certainly is not fighting FOR Conservatives on immigration, now, is he? You say:
Governor Romney fought Gay Marriage tooth and nail, and anyone who read a newspaper back then knows this to be a fact. He didn't ask for that fight, but he fought it nonetheless.
And?
He lost nonetheless, did he not? Does fighting and losing make him superior? I don't see it...and I was not, by any means, "wildly inaccurate...upsetting to you perhaps, but not inaccurate.
We have all had our fun questioning this President's leadership. Yet here he is, fighting until he gets his way. You can't have that leadership thing both ways...what is the law of the land in Mass today regarding Marriage?
Again-fighting and losing is not a resume booster.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
and looking forward to future posts expanding on all the points you touched on here.
Fred is definitely more Conservative looking and sounding than the "top tier." Beyond that, there is an indefinable quality that appeals. It is certainly possible (and obviously hoped for by many) that when he gets in the trenches he either won't wear well or will suffer by comparison with others who have honed their verbal and battle skills for the past months/years. But for those of us who believe in conservative ideals and principles, we should not be fearful or loathing of another entrant who may best embody that which we are searching for.
With apologies to Moe (I resisted saying this in his thread), I can and will vote for Mitt or Rudy if they get the nomination. I will participate in the primary but will never, ever, under threat of death, vote for McCain. Apparently this violates some kind of Republican blood oath but there you have it. I look to Fred as potentially being my salvation from having either to hold my nose or throw away my vote for president.
As for experience, traditionally presidents come from executive experience such as governorships. That most candidates on both sides come from the Senate but so rarely get elected president says pretty much all we need to know about that pompous, self-important and unseemly body. But lately some governors-turned-president have let us down (no names) or been outright disasters (Carter, Clinton). So now may be just the time for something different. (Yes, Fred was a senator. The fact that he wasn't a hotshot senator to me is actually a plus, I am so down on that body!)
Please, Haystack, keep expanding on your points. And hopefully very soon Fred will show us what he's made of. (Right as the others probably hope to take some summer time off, too, heh.)
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I would submit at this point the election is very much about impressions. As we begin to hear the exegesis of each candidate’s positions, certainly opinions begin to be formed. Nonetheless at this point the intellections are primary and somewhat chimerical, awaiting the more intense scrutiny coming with time. Given the current state of our country, complexity of contemporary governmental issues and profound disappointment with our political spectrum it is not hard to envision this electorate will be initially whimsical. Over time, this will give way to firmer, more precise convictions.
If we commence with the premise that our parties candidates are superior to the opposition, which the major candidates certainly are both in ideals and convictions, I submit that is a good place to start. We can agree to disagree and support candidates both on ideals and a largely indefinable impression of how they will act under the unique pressure that comes with being President of this great nation. However it is some combination, a matrix of the ideals and command that will ultimately lead to a choice.
So certainly impressions, as you articulate Hay, are very important at this point. At this juncture Romney does comes across as somewhat of a scripted coxcomb, Giuliani an obvious unapologetic social liberal, McCain at best unpredictable. That good people such as Duncan Hunter are not part of the conversation is certainly unfair and short sighted. That said, the sniping and backbiting, both political hallmarks, are to be expected. However, our public and the party at large are at a boiling point with this behavior and I suspect initiating such tactics, whether real or by association will find little tolerance amongst voters. Employ these tactics at your own and certainly your candidate’s risk.
Fred Thompson is a good man, plain spoken with a defensible record on important issues and the will to carry out all his articulated convictions. I find the latter point most important and salient in the conversation, since this will ultimately be a President’s guiding principle; carrying out the will of this nations populace and not stumbling when it’s time to lead. On this point, Mr. Thompson seems to currently project superior abilities, thus I think the root of present excitement. That said, I look forward to the race which will be a marathon, not a sprint.
Sorry to be so lengthy, it's a personal affliction.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
The guy who runs the web site is not some insider. He happens to be a guy who likes to compile all sorts of things on his sites, including Romney. He actually doesn't live to far from me, and I can vouch he is in no way affiliate with the campaign. I hope you will update your post to reflect those facts.
Are you going to claim anyone who disses your guy is an "insider." Their are plenty who are unaffiliated who are not infatuated with Fred and see his weaknesses as you do other candidates.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
I suggested, given the contents of the page, that this guy was an operative of the campaign...paid or not...and I further assert (as I did per your request in my recent update at the top) that he may in fact NOT be affiliated with the campaign...but that doesn't mean his work will not be distributed to your minions and used with full deniability from the campaign...c'mon man-you KNOW they all have oppo operatives...
I fully expect dissing to run amok amongst and between ALL the Republican candidates. I never said any such thing about that automatically making them insiders.
You've been here a long time man-we're doing it to each other here every day.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I think your words seem to argue that Myclob's (who runs the site) words are Romney's ans seen here:
I am amazed by something ELSE in Romney's "hit" parade of potshots and attacks on Fred the non-candidate.
How is this "Hit Parade" Romney's? This is really an unfair assertion on your part, because anyone who is Pro-Romney can start up a pro-Romney site and say anything they want. Should Mitt own everything that a supporter of his says? Is Fred responsible for everything said on www.mymanfred.com? I have seen Fred supports say all sorts of things at www.race42008.com. Is Fred responsible for those? IF so then I guess were more than even, if not, than there is no real point in your argument.
The only way you can equate what you say with fairness is to imply that Mike is in collusion with the Romney team, which he clearly is not. Mike is just having fun, it's a hobby. He has many webpages about other things where he collects info into a Database.
I do appreciate your update. That was a kind gesture.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
I'd like to note some caution about trying to generate so much momentum for Fred that we ignore what he may or may not have to say.
Currently, if Fred stayed out, I'd be happy with Romney as a candidate. I have a good feeling for where he's coming from (warts and all) and think there are a few things that he has eve over the vaunted Fred (i.e. He's implemented a health care plan which is something that no other candidate can say).
However, I like Thompson's manner and bearing and I think that I could go with Fred.
My point is simply this. Let's at least see Fred in action against this field of 12 before we start anointing him. He has a few minor questions to answer as well and while I like him, I want to see him tested a bit so that we know he'll be able to make it against the vaunted Clinton hate machine come spring time.
Romney or Fred.
My only concern in your piece is your use of the term "a [ fill in the blank ] candidacy is unacceptable to me."
While I would greatly dislike a McCain or Guiliani presidency, I will gladly vote for either against Hillary. And as you note, you would as well.
Which means you are contradicting yourself since they obviously would be "acceptable" to you.
They certainly wouldn't be PREFERABLE for you, but they would be ACCEPTABLE.
Romney or Fred.
As the Elephant said---he means what he says and says what he means. Speaks plain, no nonsense. No turn-on the tears when the camera hits him like WJC. And Fred as a trained actor would be better at it.
I may not end up liking everything he says or does, but as long as he's speaking straight and plain, I can take it.
If that's Reaganesque, then so be it.
I'm a frothing Fred Head as well. I see no other choice.
Hank In NC
Mitt Romney has miraculously rediscovered himself in several key issues, and this is due to the fact that he needs to tilt right in order to win the Republican primary. Fred doesn't have to flip flop even if he wanted to, because he's a true, life-long conservative and his record proves it.
Giuliani on the other hand, refused to participate in the Iraq Study Group, where he could have provided ideas and suggestions such as a troop surge and other pro-troop ideas; but he preferred to go raise money for his campaign. Giuliani is all about me, me, me.
Fred Thompson is the best candidate not only because of his consistent record, but because of the others' weaknesses.
Managing Editor