Fred Thompson: I Could Get Excited

By streiff Posted in Comments (117) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »


Like many of you, I have been singularly disappointed the crop of candidates emerging for the 2008. The one I like on the issues, Sam Brownback, has raised blandness to an art form. The one I think could win and probably govern, Rudy Giuliani, is 180o out from me on virtually every issue and in if 2004 taught me anything it is that electability is not a unique selling proposition.

For those who think of Thompson as an actor, think again. Even though he graduated from some minor law school in Tennessee (hi, Leon) he overcame that obstacle to become chief minority counsel during the Watergate investigation. He was a critical factor in unraveling the governorship of Tennessee governor Ray Blanton. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 86 and the National Taxpayers Union awarded him a grade of “A” seven of his eight years in the senate, the other year was a “B+”. His single biggest hit, he voted for McCain-Feingold.

Take a minute or two, view the video and read the transcript.

His "single biggest hit" as you put it, is voting for Mc/Fein. That's unfortunate.

However, at latest count, Mitt has 24 hits, McCain has 31 hits, and Rudy has 49 big hits against him.

Huckabee, Newt, T. Thompson, and Brownback are not exciting enough, or else they would already be frontrunners.

As such, I'll take that one single hit, because no candidate is PERFECT. Doesn't exist.

I've honestly been very excited about Fred Thompsons for the past five days, because I think he's what we've been waiting for.

Good luck, Fred

Thompson's a little heavier on experience/accomplishment than the Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Romney group, with 8 years and one re-election in the Senate, though he's obviously weaker in that area than Rudy, McCain and Bill Richardson. I'd have to see more. Certainly he has no disqualifying factors and is a charismatic guy (he became an actor by playing himself in a movie, and succeeded not because he's such a great-looking guy but because of the force of his personality). He has to go on the list of good possible Veep candidates even if he stays out of the primaries.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

He would make anyone he was running with look like a physical and mental midget. They come across like a third grader that brought his firefighter father to show-and-tell.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

is not to upstage the top of the ticket. Put Thompson at no 2, that ain't happening. Part of the role of the veep is to subordinate himself to the President. I doubt Thompson could do that for any of the current crew, and it would be a damn shame if he did.

Do you think a man of Thompson's import would give up a lucrative and exciting life as a television actor to attend state funerals for, say, a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani?

President if he were Veep? Seriously, john or rudy can't beat Fred in the primaries.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

1. The VP job is a lot bigger than funerals. Certainly Quayle, Gore and Cheney all had a lot more power and went to a lot fewer funerals than prior Veeps. The job has been steadily expanding in influence since George HW carved out a role as a personal envoy to foreign leaders.

2. The VP nomination is handed to you, with a significant chance of winning. It's a far easier road than the primaries.

3. Fred may be a lot taller than Rudy or McCain, but Rudy in particular isn't easily upstaged. They'd make a good team. It's not like Fred is the star of Law & Order now anyway.

I'm not saying he shouldn't run, just that if he doesn't he should still be on the VP list along with (depending who the nominee is) Sanford, Pawlenty, Kyl, Pence, maybe some of the other candidates like Brownback, Romney, or Hunter.

(I'm assuming that neither Rudy, McCain nor Newt would be a good #2, that Jeb wants to sit this one out, that Condi probably should sit this out because the next candidate should have some distance from GWB, and that we shouldn't have anyone on the ticket who lost an election in 2006).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I like having a more credible candidate in this race from the right. Let's make McCain, Giuliani and Romney have to compete for all parts of the party.

Even if Thompson gets stuffed, he will get more of our party intrested in all of this at an earlier date.

A primary race with Fred Thompson will energize the party regardless of where hefinishes in the top four.

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

VP by RC Ivie

I'm getting more excited about elections in 2008 due to Fred Thompson. I have been a very active Republican for many years and worked for Sen. Hutchison in 2001 in the Senate. I would love to see a Thompson-Hutchison ticket. This would be a strong Conservative ticket without being lapeled "Right Wing". Thompson is saying what I want to hear and standing on conservative values and candid talk. Having Kay Bailey Hutchison on the ticket would disarm the "women for women" voters. She is extremely well qualified and respected and represents her constituents. She is definitely NOT a womens issues first legislator. I've seen her fire back at several reporters, etc when asked why she doesn't champion "womens issues" that Defense, Taxes and immigration are womens issues as much as abortion and education.
I believe a Fred & Kay ticket is our best shot at maintaining the White House.

That lineup offers the best chance I've been able to think of.

of being elected POTUS through one of the world's best supercomputers and it came up with two unassailable conclusions:

1. In the primaries, he beats all Republicans that show up.

2. In the general, he beats any Democrat that shows up.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

We have already been told by a lot of people that a conservative will never be elected in 2008. That is why we have to sell our soul and support Rudi Giuliani.

That is if we don't die before election day from the proven menace of global warming.

As a Rudy supporter, I certainly don't believe a conservative is unelectable, just that we happen in this cycle to have two or three electable moderates of various stripes (Rudy, McCain, mayyyyyyyybe Romney), and a couple of unelectable conservatives (Brownback, Hunter - though Hunter might do better if he got traction in the primaries - and Newt if he ran). In fact, few of the Rudy supporters I know are supporting him because he's not an across-the-board conservative.

A viable conservative candidate would indeed change that dynamic.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Could? Could get excited???? I am already excited about Fred!

The door is opening....

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

I could see him firing up Conservatives.

However he would pretty much negate the charges of no experience levied towards the Democrats.

Imagine an Obama vs Thompson race? It would be Bobby Kennedy versus Ronald Reagan, more or less.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

More like Reagan vs Mondale.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Fred Thompson is a deity that all Democratic contenders would pale in comparison to.

Honestly just look at his record as District Attorney of New York. Darn near 100% conviction rate.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Don't forget his leadership skills displayed during the terror attack on the Washington Airport!


Also, Fred Thompson was master of the reverse head nod before it became popular (his reverse head nod while answering the tower phone is legendary!).

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

but just so you know, a near 100% conviction rate is standard for D.A.s across the country. Ask any working cop. They seldom charge cases unless they are nearly 100% convinced they can win. That's expected. Jury trials are very expensive.

Fred Thompson plays New York County DA Branch on Law and Order.

Run like Reagan!

counsel for the Watergate hearings. No experience? If you say so.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

experience probably won't impress the average guy much, is my guess. But the eight years in the Senate, that should be enough federal governing experience.

By comparison, at general-election time, Hillary will have almost 8 years in the Senate and Obama-bin-Laden will have almost 4.

if 8 years of Senate time and 8 years of legal experience is ok then 4 years of Senate time, 7 years of State senate time, and being a professor of Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious universities in the country probably is enough experience.

Hillary would have 8 years of Senate experience plus a fair amount of time as a senior partner at a notable law firm plus 8 years inside of the Clinton White House.

I for one think the experience criticism is greatly exaggerated anyway.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

not mine.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

All I said was that Thompson would negate the no experience charges levied against the likely Democratic opponent.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

8 years in the Senate, time as a lawyer in Watergate (though Thompson was a significant and influential figure in bringing down Nixon, as Hillary was not), and in between a career in the law in and out of public influence and office. Like Hillary, Thompson had few tangible accomplishments as a Senator, but made his mark elsewhere (as streiff notes, he was a key figure in a major corruption probe in Tennessee).

Nonetheless, he's not a neophyte like Obama or Edwards, and unlike Romney and Edwards he has been re-elected to public office.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Please explain the qualitative difference between his experience and Obama's or Edwards' for that matter?

8 years private practice. 8 years in the Senate. The rest of his life spent as an actor.

Obama will have 4 years as Senator. 7 years as State representative. Time in private practice and time teaching Constitutional law.

You want to say Thompson has more experience. Ok, I guess. But to say he is plenty qualified and Obama is a neophyte defies reason.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

No legislative experience is equivalent to any executive experience. People vote for a President looking forward, not
backward. Thompson comes across as a plain-speaking leader with the gravitas of a President. None of the other pretender candidates, Republican or Democrat, come even close.

The last guy I met that had the gravitas that Obama projects, I tipped for delivering the pizza.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Again where did I say that experience is relevant?

People like Thompson because of his personality and stage presence.

I for one don't have a problem with that. I understand what draws people to political leaders, and it isn't their resume(which is why so many Republicans are support Rudy despite his very non-Republican resume).

Your comment about Obama is childish. Whether you are drawn to him or not, it is clear that millions of people are.

My views of our current President are very unflattering of him but I can recognize that many people identify with him.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Millions people identify with both of them. Just because millions of people like someone isn't going to preclude me from deriding them or those with misguided souls who think they are of some value. Britney Spears comes to mind.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

What we need more than anything else is LEADERSHIP. Someone who can tell the scandal/experience mongers to bugg off!!

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Your kidding, right?

Let's take a brief look.

Winning his first election by the biggest margin in his state’s history would be a good career start (oh and I like the irony of serving out the remainder of Gore’s term, but I digress).

There is also what I believe was the first bill he sponsored to limit Congressional terms.
Then we have appropriations to restore historically black colleges/Universities, bill to allow FFL’s to conduct business at out of state gun shows, reforming the budget/oversight processes, no increases in pay for Congress, providing expedited notice to property owners in eminent domain situations, Federalism Enforcement Act and bill after bill about spending, accountability and smaller government.

Heck, I am not even warmed up yet. Fred Thompson has an extraordinary record.

And Hillary-Obama have done what? Heck, I live in NY and can not think of one thing HRC has done, for anybody. Ditto BO.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

So now we shall talk about the bills they were involved in to show how vastly more experienced Thompson is? OK.

I haven't seen this much contortion since I went to the circus. Anything, I guess, to stick to being able to call the other guy inexperienced while calling your new chosen one/actor experienced.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

That was the Dim presser where the House Dim braintrust tried to explian their cut and run resolution.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I for one think the experience criticism is greatly exaggerated anyway.

although you may not like my additional belief that Senate experience almost disqualifies someone from office.

which includes two years that haven't occurred yet. Which would make his Senate experience, upon which basis we are considering him NOW to be a viable candidate for the Presidency...2 years.

Obama is a personable candidate with a pronounced experience deficit, most of which exists because he is simply young; he was six when Fred Dalton Thompson was admitted to the bar.

For more of FDT's bio, check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson

I will give Obama this: he has a winning political personality, as does Thompson, something that has eluded HRC and will continue to elude her throughout the course of her earthly existence.

Is the election today? We have 2 years until the election.

I'd admire the willingness of some of you to point out Obama's lack of experience while extolling Thompson's experience in the same paragraph.

Thompson was a lawyer 30 years ago and a Senator for 8 years. That's it. As I said, that's fine with me, but let's not be silly about this.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

when he had only the two years of Senate experience, saying to the Democratic electorate, in effect, "I'm ready now!"

Actually, being admitted to the bar in 1967 means that Thompson was a lawyer 40 years ago. Let's not be silly about this. Experience counts.

Actually, Obama launched his campaign when he had only the two years of Senate experience, saying to the Democratic electorate, in effect, "I'm ready now!"

Yessir. And the Democratic electorate has the next 2 years to see whether they think he is fit to serve as President. Apparently you think he should be discarded immediately because.... he only has 2 years currently under his belt.

Actually, being admitted to the bar in 1967 means that Thompson was a lawyer 40 years ago. Let's not be silly about this. Experience counts.

Ok. So what does being a prosecutor have to do with being a President? I ask this because I fail to see why that is so relevant yet Obama's time as a Professor of Constitutional law at the U of Chicago apparently matters little.

And before people get all up in arms about me comparing Obama to Thompson, I'm not. My only point was my original point Thompson invalidates the inexperienced charge unless you consider acting relevant experience. That doesn't mean he would be a bad President. Heck I think he is an intriguing choice. I like that he seems both intelligent and plain spoken and able to get basic points across. But you can't reasonably say he has enough experience and the Democratic contenders don't.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

is the chief law enforcement officer. That is the relevance.

Teaching is concerned more with theory than practice. Thus Obama's professorial status, while a qualification of a kind, is inferior to Thompson's track record as a practicing member of the bar. Just as his two years of Senate experience is insignificant to Thompson's 8 years, especially running the hearings on technology transfers to China during the Clinton era.

Obama can accomplish little in the Senate for the next two years, as he is busy running for president.

So, 2 + 2 < 8

Experience counts.

So now being a prosecutor is some sort of executive position?

Sure why not. I guess dog catcher is an executive position as well since you are in charge of your captured canines.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The DOJ is part of the executive branch. And not just because that's a handy place to put it.

Just saying.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

But being part of the Executive branch is hardly the same as executive experience. Virtually every Federal employee is part of the Executive branch.

Come on, Leon. This is specious reasoning.

If Fred Thompson meets the "experience" requirement then the experience requirement is just another way of saying "I don't care what he has done specifically. It's enough for me".

That's fine but let's call 'em like they are and not split hairs by saying "8 years of Senate experience is soooooo much more than 4, or 2 since we prefer to count from now rather from the election." And I sure don't see what the "experience" difference is between Hillary and Thompson other than Thompson got paid to act.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I'm rather obviously not a Thompson supporter, so I'm not going to go out too far on a limb here, but prosecutors are "executive officers" in a way that other executive branch officials are not, as they are charged specifically with the execution of the law. They report to the AG in a special way because they are basically his direct delegates, and the AG is probably themost purely "executive" official in the cabinet, which is something I think you'll agree with.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I have no opinoin on whether Thompson has more executive experience than Obama or Edwards or whoever you guys are arguing about, or whether that is a good or necessary prerequisite for the job. Just pointing out that prosecutors are indeed executive officers, and not just in a technical sense.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I wasn't really thinking of executive in that way. If that is the way people are thinking of executive then ok. Just not the way I would define.

Using that definition aren't just about all lawyers executives or at the very least the litigators?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Those charged with the enforcement of civil regs.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate for decades but nobody wants him to run.

Besides, Hillary's time on the job is a little short of dinstinction, much like John Kerry before her.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Now this will sound hateful, and I certainly don't mean to be, but all those dingbat voters who show up for the general election and vote for the one who 'feels their pain' or some such tripe will go for him on Hollywooditis alone.

They've seen him on TV looking like he has gravitas, therefore, he will be granted gravitas in their minds. He will prompt their feeeeellllinnngs wo wo wo feeeliiiinnnnngggggssss to work and win their votes from the other good feeling guy, Obama, and the Shrew.

So, even though we will evaluate him here at RS and in the primaries on his policies and experience, he may have a chance with John Q Public based on his TV time as well.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

the last actor we elected did okay

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

from people who cite his experience as a NYC District Attorney.

(And I used to love to see him slap down the ideas of that liberal little blonde assistant DA.)

Retire Lindsey Graham. Support Thomas Ravenel for Senate 2008

what you were thinking when the little blonde was on screen? :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

(in the figurative, not demonstrative sense) independents, I see Thompson as a serious politician who is there not merely to enrich himself, which to me seems lacking in the current field of possible Republican candidates. McCain is just not right (for many reasons), Rudy seems to enjoy his own popularity too much, and being a Texan his New York role doesn't impress me much, and Romney tends to remind me of my own Gov Perry: all hair and no cattle, as it were, whose position seems to change as often as the wind and whose ethics are perhaps a bit more suspect than I like in a politician.

And the only screen role I've seen Thompson in is Red October.

I'd much rather the Republicans nominate someone who represents Republican values than someone who is merely electable. Thompson seems a good fit in this regard, at least this far out from the election.

I love Fred Thompson I sure hope he decides to run.

He may be able to win the primary if waits a while, but he'll need a pile of cash to take on Hillary or Obama, and he better start collecting soon.
I am enjoying envisioning him steamrolling Hillary or Obama in a debate!

In fact, most donors would be asking rudyjonnymitt, inc. for refunds.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It should benefit both Thompson and Guiliani. However McCain is just next door and he could benefit somewhat as well this is big news for California primary voters.

We would have to make sure he really wants it and is willing to put up with all the garbage that goes with campaigning.

Of course, the fact that I was watching a rerun of "Barbarians at the Gate" where he played the chief honcho of American Express, and that he makes life tough for the attorneys on "Law & Order" has nothing to do with it. :>)

We've had a good experience with an actor before. I don't think he would be as magical as Reagan, but one only gets a Reagan once in a lifetime.

I just think it would be neat to have a good ole boy President named Dalton.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

A lot better than Rodham!

Notice that the "Dalton" always appears in his film credits.

or does Fred! give off a "Cheney, but likable to independents" vibe?

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. They both are smart, and more hairless than most.

in his demeanor and tone he's like Cheney. I like that, the calmness.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

are suspicious of Cheney because he uses big words. Thompson certainly has the vast vocabulary, too, but he'll often summarize with a Southernism that drives the point home and connects with people from all walks of life.

As for money, I don't know how much good Hillary's funds will do if she continues to rub people the wrong way, including some Democrats, and sooner or later Obama needs to come up with something to say when it's time to speak to the issues.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

He either has soured on McCain or concluded (correctly, I think) that McCain cannot win. I would like to know a little more about their relationship these days if Thompson seriously is considering a run.

Have all pretty much soured on Senator Maverick, except for the clueless Spector, and the syncophantic Lindsy Graham.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

But apparently something fairly significant happened within a short timespan between Thompson and McCain. Just out of the most perverse interest, I would like to know what it was.

of major disagreements between McCain and Thompson. They are still reading from the same script when it comes to campaign finance reform. They are both proponents of more government regulation.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I see the "Hunt For Red October" star as VP material.
He has an outstanding resume but is entering the race a little late.

www.iowansforromney.com

the first primary is when?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Late is anytime after Mitt has been declared the frontrunner. Of course, the VRWC will ensure Mitt is taken down, so I don't see what exactly what would hold Fred up here.

Run like Reagan!

It's very early as a matter of fact it's too early. For the 1968 presidential election Nixon didn't even get into the race until 6 weeks before the New Hampshire primaries.

of Fred Thompson on Fox News Sunday and John McCain on Imus.

first Thompson

WALLACE: On the other hand, you have taken some stands that conservatives may not like. For instance, you voted for John McCain's campaign finance reform.

THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.

I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that,

now McCain

I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

I am troubled by this attitude from both Fred Thompson and john McCain. On issues they are birds of feather.

I do not and will not support the trampling of the 1st amendment rights from anybody.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Mr. Thompson has been filling in for Paul Harvey lately on the 2X daily "Paul Harvey's News and Comment" syndicated radio show? I had originally chalked that up to him being chosen as the "Heir apparent" when Paul Harvey retires for good, probably sooner than later. Current developments make me wonder if it might really be a calculated strategy to enhance his stature and name recognition with all of Paul's regular listeners throughout the country.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

Will Marsh

Just in case some of you don't know who Paul Harvey is.

http://www.paulharvey.com/index.php

Will Marsh

A few days ago, I was thinking, "Fred who?" Now that I've seen him and learned more about him, I'm very impressed. I hope he does run. I've been rooting for Newt it looks like Fred could just be the candidate that us conservatives really want.

www.scottbomb.com

The last thing we need is another Southern Republican.

We need to renationalize the party.

I generally don’t like the “us versus them” regionalism (see the tagline) but after the last six years of Bush-Delay/Blunt-Frist/Lott leadership, I’m a little sour on the whole Big Government + Wedge Issues + Corruption which seems to typify Southern politics and politicians from that region. It may be an unfair characterization but it seems to be more true than not and I’m starting to think that if we want to get out from under the cloud, we may need to insist on a ticket from someplace other than the South.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

I'd rather have a Southern Republican that a RINO (like most of the other candidates).

www.scottbomb.com

Reagan wasn't a Southerner. Dole wasn't either. The Bush family hardly qualifies as Southern.

Because excluding a region is the best way to nationalize a party...

Run like Reagan!

I was reading on Kos, how the Dems plan to go after Thompson if he is our nominee: They will criticize him for being single so many years, while supporting "family values" in the Senate.

vote Democrat at a consistently higher rate than married people. For some analysis of the 2004 presidential election in this regard, see http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050123_vindicated.htm.

So it might be unwise for the Dems to attack someone's unmarried status as inconsistent with good values. They'd risk alienating part of a group that tends to support them more than us.

Also, for voters who would actually change their vote based on such things, we might do better with a nominee who's single (Fred hompson) than a nominee who's cheated on his wife (Guiliani and Gingrich).

Hey AF,
I'm still waiting for an explanation of your claim that World War II was "a war that we shouldn't have fought in the first place."

-
NARF

Among other things, allying with the Soviet Union was one of the most repulsive things our country has ever done. People say we couldn't stand by while Germany took over Europe, but instead we stood by while Soviet Russia took over much of Europe and enslaved its people; not an improvement.

We also did nothing while the Soviets massacred unarmed ethnic Germans in eastern Europe after the war was already over, and imprisoned others for no reason other than revenge and hatred -- the kind of thing we supposedly went to war against the Nazis to prevent.

This is not an attempt to excuse the atrocities committed by the Nazis. I am pointing out that our "allies" the Soviets committed atrocities of a type and on a scale comparable to or even worse than the Nazis.

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

As for saving "poor old" France and Britain from The Bad Germans, take a look at the poverty and humiliation they deliberately inflicted on Germany after WWI.

The first World War involved no "principles" and was not a fight between "freedom" and "oppression." Neither Britain nor France was more on the side of the angels in WW1 than Germany. Neither of them had a right to be surprised that the needlessly vindictive settlement would evoke resentment, anger, and eventually retaliation.

Nothing in America's principles or our national interest justified our taking either side in WW1. Nor did those considerations justify our forcibly preventing Germany from rebuilding from the devastation that we helped inflict, rearming, and exacting retribution if they chose to do so.

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

Moreover, I don't find it clear that America was better off with one totalitarian ideology (Communism) prevailing than another (National Socialism). We could have just as well have deterred and fought the Cold War against the Nazis as against the Soviets, if need be.

Nor is there any reason to believe that the Nazi system would have been able to continue forever when the Soviet system could not. The same fundamental flaws of a totalitarian system (unfree, unhappy, unmotivated, unproductive, fearful citizens) would have made it difficult for the Nazis to prevail against a determined, strong, free America in the long run.

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

None of this means that we wouldn't have needed to engage in a "hot war" with Germany at some later point, depending on its future actions.

Then, as now, we DID need to prevent hostile powers from (1) controlling a disproportionate share of the oil / mineral resources on which we rely; (2) controlling or blocking key shipping lanes on which we rely, such as the Straits of Hormuz and the Panama Canal; (3) placing military equipment, troops, surveillance stations, etc., anywhere near our borders (like, say, Cuba).

Germany might well have attempted one or all of those things, and we'd have to act. I have no problem with us preemptively acting to secure and guard the shipping lanes, a certain share of natural resources, and a wide "buffer zone" of air and sea around our borders. Doesn't matter whether the potential threat comes from Germany, Soviet Russia, China, etc.

or did you think it up on your own? Germany would have had the Bomb and you would be writing this in German. Just how old are you and have you been yet, or where did you go to school? This is just remarkable, revisionist babble.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

because the Soviets had the Bomb?

Were the Germans un-deterrable in some way that the Soviets were not?

----------

I know these are emotional issues, but on this site I would expect arguments, however heated, not personal insults and insinuations about age and education.

Let's just say I have a doctorate, went to two of the highest-ranked schools in the country, and I haven't been in college since W's father was President. And I have moderate facility in two foreign languages, neither as a result of pressure from a foreign enemy ;)

Germany would have had the Bomb before us, because had we not been in the war, we wouldn't have even developed it. Ummm.

Thanks for the educational profile. It is most sufficient for my needs.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

don't make personal insults and call qualifications / education into question.

I am sorry for the subtlety. What I meant is your stated "qualifications/education" are explanatory of the deficiencies your posts exhibit. I consider them exculpatory in the sense that I will try not to disadvantage you to the point of ridicule in the future.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

When Germany called off their all-out bombing of Great britain in 1942, so that they could redirt much of The Luftwaffe at Russia, Great Britain had fewer than 10 wrking planes in it's air force. With which allies would the US have fought a dual cold war between us, The Nazis and Stalin?

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

how refreshing on this topic :)

It's hard to predict what would have happened. But it seems quite unlikely that the Soviet Union would have survived without our aid, meaning the Cold War would still have had two powers, us and Germany.

My major strategic fear about Germany conquering Russia at that time? The oil and precious-metal reserves that would have fallen into the hands of the Nazis. Again, though, that's not worse than those resources being in the hands of the Soviets.

Moreover, it is difficult to imagine the Germans keeping long-term control over such a vast population and land mass as Russia, let alone the other SSRs. (Russia alone had about 110 million people in 1940, see http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/aspoParis.pdf) They would spread themselves far too thin in a futile attempt to occupy/colonize Russia.

while attempting to post. I marvel at your ability to de-encrypt my response.

I still wonder how long we could get away with using the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as a moat? We would have needed someone on our side in that region.

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

the German version of a Confederate's version of the Civil War.

You realize that the Nazis were slaughtering millions of people in a calculated and structured manner, right? The Japanese weren't much better in Asia.

What exactly should we have done about Soviets evil? Attacked them?

Nothing in America's principles or our national interest justified our taking either side in WW1. Nor did those considerations justify our forcibly preventing Germany from rebuilding from the devastation that we helped inflict, rearming, and exacting retribution if they chose to do so.

You mean other than our close cultural ties to England and our historical debt to France? Are you suggesting that we should have stopped trading with France and England, 2 of our largest trade partners at the time, during World War I? Because that was the only way we could have avoided getting pulled into World War I. And if it wasn't for isolationists such as yourself World War II could have been averted but the US was so staunchly isolationist at the time we let the bloodlust of France and England determine the punishment for Germany.

Moreover, I don't find it clear that America was better off with one totalitarian ideology (Communism) prevailing than another (National Socialism). We could have just as well have deterred and fought the Cold War against the Nazis as against the Soviets, if need be.

Well luckily we never opted to let EITHER ideology prevail which is exactly what isolationism would have allowed.

Nor is there any reason to believe that the Nazi system would have been able to continue forever when the Soviet system could not. The same fundamental flaws of a totalitarian system (unfree, unhappy, unmotivated, unproductive, fearful citizens) would have made it difficult for the Nazis to prevail against a determined, strong, free America in the long run.

Well sure except the Nazi/Soviet empire would have also included France, England, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Norway, most of North Africa and any part of Asia that the Japanese didn't control. That sounds great.

Where in the world did you come up with such daft historical theories?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

and am proud that we speak their language and were founded by their people.

But we shouldn't proceed on the premise that Americans have a vastly greater tie to England than to the German countries.

In 1986, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, for the first time in more than 300 years the leading ancestral background of America's residents was no longer British, but German. Roughly 44 million Americans, or 18 percent of the populace, claimed sole or partial German heritage, a few hundred thousand more than claimed British descent.

Just to pick one large state, the 1980 Census had over 40% of Ohioans reporting German ancestry. http://www.artsci.uc.edu/german/about/germanamerican/heritage.html

And I don't think that the English or German ancestry or many Americans should lead America to take sides in wars that have nothing to do with our principles or our national security, like WW1.

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

What we all share is relief that neither Nazism or Communism ultimately prevailed in Europe.

You said exactly what I was thinking, and probably much more to the point than I would've been. Turning into a neo-con :P ?

-
NARF

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Hardly, but, he is also not an idiot. Now,(get out a nitro pill 'hawk), I agree with him also on his post.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The economy of Fascist Germany was far superior to the Soviet Communist Russia.

The only reason the Cold War lasted as long as it did was because the Soviet Union pumped all of its money into its military program, at the expense of the people.

We were living comfortably during the Cold War, while continually pumping money into our military, while the Soviet people had nothing. It demonstrates that capitalism is much better than Soviet communism.

We can only assume that a Cold War with Nazi Germany would have been more hot, and longer, simply because fascism is not communism. Fascism has many aspects of capitalism within it.

For example, in Nazi Germany, there was a middle class. With these aspects of capitalism, not to mention the ridiculous amounts of children that the Germans were having during this time, it is a possibility that the Nazis would still be in power today.

Frankly, I'm glad that the United States has emerged as the world's superpower, rather than any other nation. Had things occurred differently, the world would be much different, probably worse.

I think it's pretty hard to generalize about the relative success of national socialism versus Leninist/Stalinist socialsm. By 1940 the Bolsheviks had about a quarter century to run their country into the ground. The Nazis, meanwhile, had only been under the Führer's Enabling Act for 7 years. Plus, they took power when Germany was on its back, and had no place to go BUT up, pretty much.

So I'm not about to say that national socialism is better than any other kind of socialism, in terms of allowing long-term economic growth to be possible.

Run like Reagan!

I would bet that the only reason singles tend to vote Dem. is because they are usually the youngest of the electorate. Once they grow up, a lot of 'em become more conservative. I was pretty liberal in my 20's but only because I was ignorant. The older I got and the more I learned about politics, the more conservative I became. And I'm still single.

www.scottbomb.com

I imagine part of the reason that singles vote more Dem is that they are, on average, younger than marrieds -- i.e., less experienced, more naive, need some more years of paying taxes, learning about the real world, possibly being a victim of crime, etc.

for various reasons. First and foremost I like his values. A very close second reason is I think he can smash any Dem opponent in debate and election.

FDT can reach a very large percentage of voters and make himself understood. At this point, I truly believe he may be the one candidate that can prevent the Dems from controlling all three branches; a nightmare scenario.

I believe he is what the country needs AND what the conservatives are looking for. With Arnie and many others changing their state primaries to February ~ I just hope he decides sooner rather than later.

Filmography:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/

While I was a huge fan "Necessary Roughness", I'd have to say my favorite movie involving Fred Thompson is easily "Days of Thunder".

Fred Thompson - president, Zell Miller - VP. That would be great on all fronts as well as a clear message to the terrorists.

but isn't there still some merit to a geographically balanced ticket? Not saying it's the biggest consideration, by far, but still a consideration. Don't know about running two Southerners, including one from a state we're pretty sure to win anyway (GA).

Or would Miller maybe bring us some older, more-conservative Democrats who wouldn't already vote Republican?

The last four successful tickets were anything but balanced: Arkansas/Tennessee and Texas/Wyoming (at least after he moved from Texas).

Southerners win Presidential elections. There's nothing wrong with favoring that region on the ticket if your goal is victory.

Run like Reagan!

1. Zell's too old.

2. We're not nominating two Southerners, not when there's an uphill battle to convince swing voters outside the South that the party is not wholly run by the South. Need some geographic balance, there. It's the same reason you can't just take two Coastal liberals on the D ticket (although they may yet go Hillary-Obama, which is in some ways an all-Chicago ticket).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Right now, Guiliani is the only person I would consider voting for in the primaries.
Well, I might vote for Hunter if he could get some traction and exposure. But unfortunately, I think that would be a wasted vote.
Fred Thompson could change my mind though. Aside from Rudy, I think he gets this whole war on terror better than most. And he is right on other issues that are on my list.
______________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Since most of Giuliani’s support comes from conservative Republicans, a Fred Thompson candidacy will immediately siphon some of his support. I don’t consider him a southern Republican. Yes, he’s from Tennessee, but TN is a lot different than the Deep South. Also, he’s more of a national figure, e.g. Law and Order. Obviously he’s going to run, and when he does, it’s going to be a battle between Thompson and McCain.

I think Thompson grabs the baton from McCain when and if he drops out of the race. McCain and Thompson are very close friends, and Thompson is a very strong supporter of McCain campaign finance reform.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

fred thompson could definitely be a strong candidate for president in 2008. my prediction, though, is that McCain - Thompson will be the Republican candidates for president and VP in 2008. Thompson endorsed McCain in 2000 and I think it's a ticket that can win, and more importantly restore some competence and balls back to the executive branch.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service