Fred Thompson Live
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tonight Fred Thompson is giving another speech. Expect this one to be a more tightly woven speech than the Lincoln Club address, though not the "Stump Speech 2.0" some clever wordsmiths are giving to it.
Fred is going to speak at the Council for National Policy in Virginia. He'll be introduced by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. His topic? Judges.
According to an adviser who spoke to RedState on background, this speech will be one Fred wrote himself. It's characterized as tight, pointed, and includes specifics -- something several critics say have been missing from earlier speeches. Fred Thompson will share his thoughts on what role the judiciary should play in our society and what can be done to move the judiciary in that direction.
A lot of commentators, picking up off Robert Novak's criticisms of Fred's California speech, which was well received by the audience, are suggesting a re-tooling of Fred's speaking. Fred's advisers are suggesting a strengthening. While it may not be "Stump Speech 2.0" or even a new style, expect it to well received by a crowd eager for a Republican alternative.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The End of Rudy — Comments (119) »
Fred Thompson Live 56 Comments (0 topical, 56 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
as soon as his current television contracts are fulfilled, he'll be in. It would be a violation of election law if he announced while there are still unshown episodes in the can.
We all wait with baited breath!
Managing Editor
The networks - NOT cable - pull programs of active candidates so they can't run afoul of equal time rules, which don't exist anymore. It's a matter of corporate choice not law.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No surprise that I didn't think about it first but others in the media should have. An investigative journalist need only spend some time at the FEC website to find that.
I think it's also great that Hillary and Obama are already spending millions of dollars to sling mud at each other while Fred and Newt haven't spent a dime yet.
I doubt the CNP is going to let any cameras in on their party.
I really wish I could hear the speach myself instead of hearing others' reaction to it. If Fred convinces me that he's viable and better on judges than Romney, he's got my support.
Dick Morris is clueless on conservative politics but for once he has a point...our candidate for 2008 is essentially in the position of Leonidas from 300. only the strongest has a chance of defeating the thousand nations of the Hillary empire...Fred must show he is up to the task or he is DOA
They wish to spin the situation in this way but, we'll see an entirely different election results this time...where the Libs will be spittin' nickels. ;- )
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and the sincerity of Hollywood."
I agree but, lets keep fooling em. The more confident they are, the more likely they are to elect Hillary and keep turning UN style. It's a long way to the election. Liberals over-estimate their strength. Let them. We will win.
Yes. Yes. Republicans are hopeless under this new tide. We cant win. We'll never be able to beat Hillary. And you know what really made the Democrats strong, it was following net roots. Oh please Democrats, dont follow net roots. Because the whole country is really anit-American net roots.
Let our sleeping dragon lie. We will win. If we play our cards right and ignore what we are being baited to do, we will win.
Dick Morris is a one-trick pony. All he has is his attachment to the Clintons and it constantly clouds his writing. There are no polls showing overwhelming support for Hillary and instead they all show a huge amount of antipathy towards her. She's only a juggernaut in the minds of the MSM.
Visit The Scratching Post!
"A lot of commentators, picking up off Robert Novak's criticisms of Fred's California speech, which was well received by the audience, are suggesting a re-tooling of Fred's speaking."
I couldn't figure out Novak's complaint. I think he used the term "dull as dishwater," and I couldn't disagree more. Maybe I'm just a Fredhead, but I thought the part of the speech I saw (the last part) was outstanding in all ways. First and foremost, it was inspiring, something we need more of.
Of course, I always have thought that the title "The Great Communicator" was given to Ronald Reagan to diminish the power of his ideas. The story was always about how well he said things, not how right he was.
“Political Correctness” is just double-talk for “Capitulation to Extortion.”
that anyone would say the same thing about Obama.
Somehow everyone expects the best leaders to have perfect political talent at the same time. Maybe they hold Fred to a higher standard because he's a professional actor but many of the world's most important speeches were less than perfect oratories. From what I've heard of their voices, Lincoln and T.Roosevelt never would have made it in today's political climate. Like the best websites, speeches should be content-driven first.
Not to nitpick, but the oldest surviving audio recording is from 1888
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph#Oldest_surviving_recordings
in American history. I know you don't mean to nitpick but I also don't always worry about being absolutely precise with language here.
Sorry, it just surprised me because I have always thought of Lincoln as a great orator. I guess it is the difference between the majority of Americans reading a speech in the paper and watching a 10 second video clip on the evening news.
Accounts I've read of people hearing Lincoln speak for the first time were they were shocked that such a big man(6'4")had such a high-pitched, tinny voice.
Lincoln wasn't even the "featured" speaker the day he delived what in my opinion is the greatest speech in U.S. history, The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln's speech 242 words delivered in just over two minutes, Edward Everett, a great orator of the day, spoke for two hours.
Does anybody remember what Everett said that day?
This group isn't going to let the reactions to the speech slip into the media. These guys mean business. If the speech goes well, this will be the candidate, no doubt. These guys give secrecy a whole new meaning.
All he has to do is look to any of the blogs to see what's waiting for him.
I hope he's got a thick skin!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
As long as Fred Thompson isn't a fake Republican like McCain, I could support him.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
Links to McCain is one thing. As long as he has adopted McCain's appetite for stabbing conservatives and Republicans in the back whenever there's a chance to be buddies with Chuck Schumer and Chris Matthews.
Let's find out how extensive those "links" are. Did Thompson vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 as did McCain? Did Thompson endorse the validity of judicial filibusters as did McCain? Did Thompson call the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" dishonest and dishonorable as did McCain? Did Thompson call Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "forces of evil" as did McCain? Did Thompson appear on Colorado TV ads endorsing gun control as did McCain?
Once we find out, we'll know if Thompson is just another fake Republican like McCain.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
Did Thompson vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 as did McCain? Did Thompson endorse the validity of judicial filibusters as did McCain? Did Thompson call the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" dishonest and dishonorable as did McCain? Did Thompson call Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "forces of evil" as did McCain? Did Thompson appear on Colorado TV ads endorsing gun control as did McCain?
No is the correct answer to all.
...but for a completely different reason than the one intended. Long story, and a sadly geeky one on my part. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
He is still my second or third choice
I think a McCain nomination would brutally split the GOP. Sure, some conservatives and Republicans have forgiven McCain for calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "forces of evil." Some have forgiven McCain for calling the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "Dishonest and dishonorable" when they challenged John Kerry's war record and his statements in 1971 in front of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Many have forgiven McCain for devoting all of his energy toward McCain-Feingold, toward maintaining the Democrat party's right to fillibuster Bush's judicial nominees (even though McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg).
But many conservatives and Republicans have not. Many, including me, will look at a John McCain nomination as evidence that the Republican party doesn't really stand for anything, that it is just a shell organization through which a self-important blowhard like John McCain can walk on his way to the White House where he can shaft conservatives again and again. But we Republicans aren't supposed to criticize McCain because he is, after all, a Republican.
Oh, and he's a conservative. How did a conservative end up endorsing the validity of judicial filibusters and end up voting against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 when the country was headed for recession?
If McCain wins the nomination, expect millions of Republicans to stay home. As for me, I'll vote a straight Republican ticket except for the Presidency.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
i would probably vote for Hillary, just for the pure existential absurdity of it all. hell if he doesn't get it, Hillary might run him as her VP!
hell if he doesn't get it, Hillary might run him as her VP
John Kerry begged McCain to be his running mate, and Harry Reid begged McCain to switch parties and join the Democrats.
I would consider voting for Hillary Clinton if McCain is the GOP nominee. Consider how McCain defended John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign when the Bush campaign targeted Kerry as "weak on defense." The charge was obviously true, since Kerry voted to cut intelligence funding and voted against weapons systems all the time. Kerry even voted against the 1991 Gulf war even though the United Nations had already authorized force.
So, McCain was obviously wrong on two counts. Wrong on the facts and wrong to defend his Lefty buddy in the heat of a campaign. Did Thompson defend John Kerry in the middle of the campaign? Did Romney, Guiliani, Brownback, Hunter.....
You get my point.
Sure, many Republicans have their "maverick" moments, where they deviate from the party line. But McCain is in a whole separate category.
I can't support him.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
Angel, after viewing about 18 posts of yours about McCain...I get the point. You don't like him. I'm sure there are others here who are just as adamantly opposed to say, Giuliani or Romney and even Fred Thompson if he runs.
I'm not supporting McCain - I don't like him either. But I'll tell you what. If McCain gets the GOP Nomination for President and he's up against Hillary Clinton, he's got my vote. And no matter how upset I am over his past, is that upset tantamount to me turning yeller and voting a Dem Leftist into the highest office in the World.
And by the way, Angel, i'd like to remind you of the tag line you use: Hillary Clinton thinks the axis of evil is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron. I would guess that John McCain believes the axis of evil is Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda.
Now way will I EVER vote for McCain. But I also don't think he can win the primary so I'm hoping I'm not put in that position.
We all have our limits. Some might have decided that they couldn't support Arlen Specter's reelection in Pennsylvania in 2004 because he was too unreliable. Or maybe Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island in 2006.
Well, if McCain wins the GOP presidential nomination next year, that will be my limit. It will be evidence that the Republican party is more interested in someone pre-approved by Tim Russert and Chris Matthews than it is in the principles of its party.
But maybe all of McCain's appearances on Chris Matthews' hardball will pay off and he'll replace the votes of disgruntled conservatives with middle of the roaders who like people who get along with Matthews and Russert and others in the Mainstream Media.
Many support McCain because of his war service. That's okay for them I guess. But I would rather support someone based on the issues. And McCain doesn't give me much to root for. On taxes and judicial nominations, he is too eager to join the other side.
Maybe you can find voters who don't care about the vote on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and the judicial filibusters to vote for McCain. But those are, among other issues including freedom of speech, the issues I care about. I vote Republican about 95 percent (or greater) of the time. But with McCain, I have reached my limit.
And you can bet that there are millions of Republicans who feel as I do. Maybe people will think about that when they vote in the primaries. Maybe nominating a "maverick" will backfire in the end.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
I'll just respond by saying....
- Thank you to all of the Republicans who sat home last Fall and refused to vote out of disdain for your Party. Thank you to some of you who even cast votes for the Dems as a form of protest over the Repubs spending woes and corruption scandals. But I hate to beak it to you this way, but the Repubs didn't hear you (and the Dems actually think you sent the message to THEM that they are right) and now you have a majority of Dems in Congress. Enjoy the next few years savoring your precious protest. So Thank you, for nothing. -
And if you really think the current Republican Party is reflective of "your Party" then you have been hiding in a cave for the last 7 years. The base has not left the Republican Party, the party has left the base. I find it humorous that you refer to an abstinance from voting as a "protest". How about it wasn't a protest but simply a reflection that there was simply no one who warranted the votes of confidence? For crying out loud, the base gave the Party both Congress and the White House and the party leadership got their butts handed to them by the minority party on most issues. Sorry. Not a leadership group I can find any reason to put any confidence in.
...Chief. Your points are valid. My stance all along though has been that rebuilding the Party will take time and if the Left controls the House, the Senate and gains the White House in '08, I'm not sure this Country will survive it for 2, 4, or 6 years.
Anyway, at the moment, I'm in way too good of a mood celebrating the U.S. troops knocking off of Mullah Dadullah in Afghanistan! Fantastic News!
You are absolutely correct when you speak of "rebuilding the party". Sometime things get so corrupted that one simply needs to start from scratch. And yes, I too shudder at the thought of the Progressive/Socialists running this nation for the period of time it will take to rejuvinate the Republican Party. I view that agonizing period as simply a cathartic experience that should reinforce to the masses, just how badly they need conservative, traditional, leaders at the helm. The current "lack of leadership" is going to take time to correct. It is never easy busting down the walls of the good ole' boy club that permeates the party, but a necessary task none the less.
The real challege is finding someone with true conservative values, integrity, leadership ability, and a moral compass, capable and deserving of leading this nation that is willing to place themselves into the sewer that national politics has become. I know of few who are willing to compromise those attributes to associate with the current ilk that pervades Washington. When and if they appear on the scene, I will gladly do my part in promoting their ascendency.
How easy it would have been for McCain to have voted, along with a huge majority of other Senate Republicans in 2001, for the Bush tax cuts. How easy it would have been for McCain to have announced, along with his fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, that he would support the Byrd/constitutional/nuclear option on judicial filibusters. And similarly on a host of other issues where he has taken the maverick position while other Republicans could do nothing but roll their eyes.
John McCain had a choice. He chose to stick his fingers in the eyes of the rest of his party's caucus. And unlike Olympia Snowe of Maine or Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island or even Gordon Smith of Oregon, McCain represents a state that voted for President Bush in 2000 and in 2004. So, it's not like McCain's need for political survival in Arizona required him to buck the base of his party.
Thus, I see no reason why the base of the party owes anything to John McCain. If the Republican party wants its base voters to be motivated to support their candidates, maybe they should nominate candidates who side with the large majority of their party on very important issues.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
because he is, after all, a Republican
McCain's whole career has been built around being a "rebel", a "maverick" against the Republican Party, so I don't see any obligation to support him. Lincoln Chaffee voted against the Party more times, but that's mostly because McCain is clever enough to vote with Republicans when it doesn't matter. But when Teddy Kennedy or a Democratic leader needed a 51st vote, McCain was always there for them, willing to throw his whole POW prestige behind derailing whatever the Republicans were trying to do at the moment.
I'm not anti-McCain. I would vote for him if nominated, but I agree. He's made his bed as a maverick now he has to sleep in it. He is too unpredictable. Who knows what he'll do in three or four years down the line if elected. The age issue is also a problem. I sure he's plenty competent and energenic, but its perception that counts and he just comes across like a guy whose time has past. When he tries to act dynamic, he looks like a cartoon character on caffeine.
Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Bauer, Land,
Heck, they're all their listening to him right now, so I'm not worried about Fred calling them any names.
to win?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
We are fighting a war. Fred Thompson looks like perfect for the role as a wartime leader. Fred has stature, maturity, and "gravitas".
Whereas, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Barack Obama all look like boyscouts with nice haircuts.
We live in a day and age where our nation can wage a war and nobody even feels like it's a war. Our economy is so strong that it can support massive expenditures for military operations without causing people to "sacrifice", buy war bonds, ration materials, etc. The vast majority of our citizens don't serve in the armed forces, and most don't know anyone serving in Iraq. Many do, don't get me wrong, but most don't. Plus, this country is hardly united in this effort. I like Fred a lot, and I would definitely vote for him, but I disagree about your reasoning that people want someone to turn to in these "times of trouble & tumult".
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
He seems to believe that Fred is interested in running a Beltway-approved small-focus campaign. From what I can tell -- not least from that speech itself -- he's only running because he plans on trying the opposite.
That doesn't mean specifics aren't necessary, but they'll be embedded in his attempt to reshape the country's political narrative and discourse. This is bound to go over much better among actual voters than the DC punditocracy.
is one of those guys who are never happy with anything, kinda like George Will. Those guys almost seem happier when they lose.
but, when you get past his commentary, his facts are usually trustworthy. At least he's worth reading if you know what to expect of his style.
... Yes? Maybe this will be the prelude to an announcement!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
Whoever gets elected in 2008 is doomed to be a one-term president. The Democrats are pretty much a shoe in to retain control over Congress, especially the US Senate, where Republicans are defending 21 seats to the Democrats 12. The Bush tax cuts will expire. More job killing regulations will be enacted, including the ever popular minimum wage increase, which usually attacks and eliminates jobs for unskilled workers. The economy will dive into a recession.
The president will be helpless to do anything about it since a president does not have the authority to pass legislation; Congress is given that power in Article 1 of the US Constitution. Since a sagging economy usually spells trouble for the party that holds the White House in a midterm election, the 2010 elections will be bad for the party that holds the White House. In 2012 the voters will likely blame the sagging economy (or sluggish recovery) on the incumbent president, resulting in yet more losses for the party holding the White House in Congressional races and the defeat of the incumbent president in the 2012 presidential election.
It should be noted that this fits into a recent pattern: A president who serves with a Congress where both chambers are controlled by the Democrats for his entire four years in office is defeated in his relection bid. Ford was defeated in 1976; Carter was defeated in 1980; George Herbert Walker Bush was defeated in 1992.
Presidents who have the good fortune to serve along side a Congress where at least one of the chambers is controlled by the Republicans for at least two years of his first four year term is reelected. Reagan was reelected in 1984 (the US Senate was majority Republican from the 1980 election until the 1986 election). Clinton was reelected in 1996 (the US House and US Senate were majority Republican from the 1994 election until the end of his presidency). George W Bus was reelected in 2004 (the US House was majority Republican for the his entire first term).
Of course, the next president could end up defying recent history. But if you were going to be the next president, how confident would you be that you could get anything positive accomplished when you are forced to ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to help you out on the economy, ask them to extend the Bush tax cuts, ask them to fix the Alternative Minimum tax, ask them to quit passing job killing legislation like minimum wage increases and such?
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
If Thompson is the savior of the Party- why has National Review panned both of his last two speeches as "underwhelming"?
And why is Thompson any better than Brownback, Hunter, Thompson (Wis), or Gilmore? Looks like another old white southerner to me. Do you REALLY think the country is going to want to spend EIGHT more years with yet another guy who talks like a cowboy?!! Face reality. Rudy is our only hope at beating Shrillary.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Any idea when the speech will start and which network will be carrying it?