Redstate

At least that's what he said on the Sunday Morning appearance. He declared himself to be pro-life.

From FOX News Sunday:

HOST CHRIS WALLACE: So let's do a lightning round — quick questions, quick answers, a variety of issues — to see where Fred Thompson stands.

FRED THOMPSON: Um hmm.

WALLACE: Abortion.

THOMPSON: Pro-life.

WALLACE: Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years.

We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong.

The man seems solid, and the communications skills which Hunter stresses are of extraordinary importance right now when one has the conservative guiding principles to be a great President.

and one that made me a believer...I've like him for a long time ..... he was so at ease when asked those questions.

I kept envisioning him in a debate against anyone...BO/HRC...anyone....no contest, period.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

here

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

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

When I envision Thompson in a debate against Obama, I think of a grandfather talking about the world with his grandson and saying "Son, let me tell you how it really is." Imagine their liberal new age nonsense being trumpeted in a debate and then Thompson coming in and tearin them to shreds. It would be GREAT! Does anyone really think the other candidates have the same kind of gravitas as Thompson?

Yes, I, too, wish he had won a single term, passed a comprehensive health care bill, and promptly bailed out like D.B. Cooper.

Fred Thompson hasn't even successfully run so much as a gas station, as far as I am aware.

Our best presidents have always had executive experience. In addition to the gubernatorial experience of the presidential candidate you're alluding to, he also built several multi-billion dollar empires. Fred Thompson played a DA on TV. Umm...president?

the fact that the guy with executive experience has taken so many positions on so many issues that no one, even his supporters, can conclusively say what he believes. And leaving aside that the guy with executive experience has proven conclusively that he can't build a political party.

If you're going to shill for Romney, fine. I don't mind. But at least try to shill in the context of the story. No one is claiming Thompson has executive experience, you guys do continue to claim that Romney is a conservative. Why don't you compare Thompson's voting record over nearly a decade to any or all the position Romney has taken on every issue.

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

Which is why so few Senators (two?) have been elected president. We're not electing someone to just be right on policy - which, incidentally, Mitt Romney is - we're also electing someone to be the CEO of the United States. To run the country.

Of course there is probably no experience that can completely prepare one for being President of the United States, and a certian amount of on-the-job training is necessary for any president.

But while experience running a large state government or any one of the multi-billion dollar companies that Mitt Romney has been a leader in and been a part of building clearly build and demonstrate skills that are cross-applicable to running the American government and economy. Maybe I'm missing them, but I'm more than happy to be enlightened to the substantive attributes that playing a DA on a legal drama brings to running the executive aparatus of the U.S. government.

Would you like to have someone who you agree with run the country into the ground? And my point is that I'm not so sure how much we can really tell if we agree with him. Supposedly he did absolutely nothing as chair of the senate committee he headed and he was just one of 395 lawmakers who basically play an advisory role in shaping legislation. And even then, he's not really associated with any important legislation. I am aware, however, of how supportive he is of McCain-Feingold.

I'll take the anti-McCain-Feingold candidate, thank you very much.

Oh yeah...this idea that Mitt Romney should take a knock for not turning Taxachusetts, miraculously, into a place where the GOP is all of the sudden competative or some sort of GOP bastion is absolutely vapid. You diminish yourself by even suggesting that's some sort of indicator of anything. LOL. The only type of Republican that could even possibly "rebuild" the GOP in Massachusetts would not be the kind of Republican that any of us would want to be president. It'd be some sort of competent version of Lincoln Chafee, and I'm very thankful that that's NOT what we have in Mitt Romney.

On the flip side, did Fred Thompson "build" the GOP in Tennessee??

There is little in Romney's governorship that indicates he would figfht for whatever conservative principles he might have at this moment.

He left the Massachusetts Republican party in a shambles with fewer elected officials after his tenure than before. To the extent that he had priorities in Massachusetts, those did not include electing Republicans even of the Linc Chaffee variety.

Lastly, your performance on this thread is a reason why so many of us are beginning to detest the Romney campaign. When his credentials are questioned the questions are dismissed as unfair. When another candidate is discussed you guys simply try to tear the other guy down.

I've received email from the Romney campaign spreading rumors on guys like Sam Brownback. I don't like it.

Oh, executive experience: Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton. I'm not impressed.

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

1. You're right, other than closing a $3 billion budget gap without raising taxes or increasing debt by elminating wasteful spending, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive pro-growth economic reforms; other than fighting to reverse the Mass SJC's pompous judicial activism; other than governing as a pro-life governor who vetoed embryonic stem cell research...other than THAT, there's nothing in Mitt Romney's governorship that indicates that he would "fight for whatever conservative principles he might have at the moment."

Even his healthcare plan, which I'm undecided on since I want more of a full conversion to Health Savings Accounts, was authored by that bastion of left wing activism, The Heritage Foundation.

2. Would you rather Romney worked to get Chafee-variety Republicans elected in Massachusetts?? Honestly, I'm rather glad he didn't. We just got rid of Chafee. I don't want any more, thank you very much.

3. I've never said that criticims of Romney are unfair. In fact, time and time again, I've come out on the side of properly vetting the field. I'm sorry that this guy that you're pushing and placing all your hopes and dreams in doesn't seem to withstand even the slightest scruitny. There's a reason why the idea of a Fred Thompson candidacy was basically laughed off the set by the Special Report with Brit Hume panel. There is nothing in Fred Thompson's resume that suggests that he should even consider running for president, much less that he should be the Republican nominee or actually become president.

When you stack Fred Thompson's eight years in the Senate and add to it whatever private sector experience he has, such as it is, and then compare it to anyone else in the field - but especially Mitt Romney's tremendous record of private and public sector success...Fred Thompson looks like a rather pathetic excuse for a candidate to be President of the United States.

4. Sure, there have been some presidents with executive experience who weren't much good. Jimmy Carter belongs on that list. If it weren't for his personal failings and position on social issues, though, Bill Clinton would not be on that list. On most economic issues, Bill Clinton post-1994 was pretty solid. At least he generally stayed out of the way of prosperity. On the other hand, we've had two senators elected president and and additional senator become president, I believe - Warren Harding, JFK, and LBJ. Harding and LBJ were dismal presidents and JFK was a good one for his short tenure. 33%. Not very good odds. There's a reason that America doesn't elect senators to be president very often.

The reason America doesn't elect Senators to be President very often is not because of "executive experience". It's because it's very easy to take apart a Senator's voting record in a political campaign. Senators often have to vote for or against bills that have elements in them that they might like or dislike. If the Republicans vote against the porked out Iraq bill, for instance, because the Democrats through in over $20 billion in pork, they're not voting against the Iraq funds, they're voting against the pork. But an opposing campaing can then say "so and so voted AGAINST funding our troops in Iraq!"

This is the kind of thing that makes it hard for Senators to get elected President. Not "executive experience". And I think you probably know that, but are trying to frame it in a way that is more favorable to your point of view...

Why are we arguing so strenuously against this idea? Sounds like someone's afraid of what Fred Thompson might do to his preferred candidate.

Regardless of where you fall on the larger question of who we should nominate, you can't fail to acknowledge that there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the candidate field at the moment. There are lots of conservatives, and Republicans generally, who are just not feeling fired up about any of the choices we have. So why isn't having another option good?

Fred Thompson SHOULD run. He brings something to the table. And that's not to say that everyone will or should support him. I'm not even sure that I would support him. But I think that we do need to have an outlet by which to speak to the field and tell them - "you just don't cut it, we want something more."

The GOP has oft been observed to move more for a "coronation" than an actual nomination. We find the frontrunner early and clear the field. I would note that it is a valid observation - observe how often we even do this for Senate and House elections in fairly safe districts and states. We live under the constant impression that an actual discussion of issues in the form of a selection between candidates will somehow horribly damage our chances in the general election. Time to put that all aside. It is simply too early for a sizeable group of voters to be in the "well I'll suck it up and take the best of a bad lot" mindset.

More choice is not a bad thing, unless you have no faith in the people to choose well. And the idea that people have the genuine capacity to make intelligent decisions about their own lives and how they want to be governed is (at least last time I checked) a core tenet of conservative thought.

My only fear is that too many conservative candidates will be splitting the conservative vote, and we'll end up electing a nominee who is well to the left of the Republican Party, such as John McCain or Rudy Giuliani - like what happened in CA50 that saw Brian Bilbray succeed in the primary and like what happened in the Michigan primary that first saw Joe Schwarz elected to Congress.

If the conservative vote is split among Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Jim Gilmore, and Sam Brownback with Mike Huckabee peeling off economic populist social conservatives, the nomination of Rudy Giuliani will be assured even though he's far to the left of the party on a whole litany of issues.

However, as mayor of the largest city in America, he is a very seasoned and experienced executive. Which means that he will very effectively govern with his left-wing views because, as we saw when Dubya first came to office, Congressional Republicans tend to do whatever the Executive Republican tells them to do. We're in short supply of pincipled conservatives in congress these days.

Now, if they all want to give it a go, then fine. But if they're not attracting significant support, they should drop out before they cause the most conservative candidate that we could elect from being knocked out by splitting the conservative vote up in the Republican primary.

Give me a break.

Your boy Mitt is no "conservative". He MAY - operative word, MAY - be more conservative than Rudy, but he's no heart and soul conservative.

Brownback? Bzzzzzt. In describing himself as a REAL compassionate conservative, he noted that we hadn't seen real compassion under Bush. Combined with his stance on immigration, he's out. He is probably the strongest "social conservative" in the lot, however.

Huckabee never met a tax he didn't like or a problem government couldn't solve. Nope.

Newt qualifies as a conservative. Doubt he will run.

Gilmore? Don't know much about him, but he seems (based on comments at RS only) to be a "love 'em or hate 'em" kind of guy.

I don't really know where Thompson stands on most issues. I do know that I like what he says and how he says it on the issues I've heard him comment on. At this point, he could be a strong contender.

FWIW, Brownback will never get out of single digits, Mitt might get into double digits, but will never get to 1/2 of Rudy's numbers. McCain will continue to implode, he's just not fit to be POTUS.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

No candidate save Mitt and Newt is a solid conservative on EVERY ISSUE. And even then, Mitt has only blossomed as a full-blown conservative within the past few years, even though I think he's hitting his stride quite well. (Come on...Ann Coulter endorses Mitt Romney and you think that he MIGHT be more conservative than Giuliani...give me a break.)

But what will happen is people prioritize their causes. People who prioritize social issues will split one way. People who prioritize spending will split another way. Those who prioritize tax policy will split another. And those who prioritize gun control another. Foreign policy another. Other various domestic policy issues varios other ways.

If each of these candidates ends up staking ground in their "area," and people, dissatisfied that there's no candidate that they like 100% and convinced that there's no one who's any good, instead break for the candidate who is at least the best sounding on their particular pet issue, then the conservative vote gets sliced and diced many different ways.

Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, and Jim Gilmore are by far the most conservative candidates in this race and good conservatives all. Brownback and Gilmore simply can't get elected at this point. Mitt Romney, due in part to his wild success in the private sector, has the communication ability, resources, and organization to do it, however.

But there's only one liberal who is in serious contention in the GOP Primary, and the other is just a megalomaniac who is difficult to characterize as being of any particular political philosophy other than the promotion of his own self interest, whatever the media asks it to be. All of the center-left factions of the Republican party will be united around Rudy Giuliani. McCain's campaign is imploding, and I don't expect it to survive through the first primary.

That leaves conservatives - the 77% of the party who isn't polling for Giuliani right now, to decide what they're going to do. Be divided amongst a couple strong and a multitude of lesser candidates who have some sort of perceived core competancy on "their issue," thus allowing the candidate FURTHEST from their position to win?

We'll see what happens, I guess.

Being a genetic cynic and holding the general philosophy that you can tell a politician is lying because his lips are moving, your guy has zero cred with me. If I confine myself to a review of his positions on issues since 2005, he's pretty conservative. If I look at all the positions he's held, shucks I come to the conclusion that there must be something in the water in MA because he changes positions about as often as the junior Senator from the Commenwealth.

Romney has never held a position that was unpopular with electorate concurrent with the election he was contesting. A real man for all seasons he is. Based on his history, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Mittboy is just another electoral whore. (With apologies to whores, who can generally be trusted to do what they say they will do.)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

thanks MBeck...thanks a lot!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I saw the interview on FNS that morning. Wallace called for a lightning round, and Thompson assented. Wallace asked about abortion, and Thompson said, without hesitation, "Pro-life." Wallace sought to clarify that by asking about Roe v. Wade, and Thompson kidded him about going beyond a standard lightning round. Wallace knew that Thompson would answer, so he asked again about Roe v. Wade. Thompson gave a complete answer.

You don't have to be waiting with baited breath for much of anything. Many of us like what we have heard so far from Fred Thompson and understand to what other positions such policy leads.

Four of our last five Presidents had experience as governors. Of those, both Carter and Bush were/are incompetent and Clinton, while somewhat effective because of his rather amazing communication skills, was a sociopath. Executive experience is over-rated. All Executive experience gets these people is a jaded lesson in how to milk rich campaign contributors for dollars in exchange for favors. The vaunted experience is totally corrupting.

Reagan of course was an (the?) outstanding president but the defining quality that made him outstanding was his communications ability and not his executive ability. He brought that communication skill from the acting world to the Governorship and then the Presidency.

Like Reagan and Clinton, Thompson has the communications gift. I hope he jumps into the contest because he is far more inspiring as a leader then any of the top tier candidates and none of them are remotely conservative. Leaders are born, not made. Leadership skills learned from executive experience are a poor substitute for innate ability. Thompson has the gift. Guiliani does too but his problem is that he is in most respects a liberal.

I agree.

The only reason people want to draft Thompson is because he is a Republican with great communication skills.

They want a winner. They want the Reagan Democrats to come back to the fold. They want a leader that makes you swell with pride when he speaks, not one you that makes you grimace with embarrassment as he stumbles and pauses.

The country is split so closely right now, having a charismatic Republican show up at the debates -- one who instills confidence -- will guarantee victory for the GOP on election day.

So the questions are: Can Thompson live up the the hype, and does he want to?

Check out his interview on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sagvVMfAUa4

He was perceived well enough to handily win a second term in 2000, with favorite son Gore running up-ticket on the other side.

Al Gore, Bill Frist, and Lamar Alexander (will) all handily win re-election also. Should we consider them for president?

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

it doesn't answer his question: What did he stand out for?

Phrased differently: On what front did he lead the battle?

It's relatively easy to get an 86% ACU rating and never lead any legislative battles (the same is true for those who hold 80%+ ADA ratings). But if he is going to be president, where he is going to have to LEAD battles, what examples in his past history do we look for?

Neither Aplomb nor I am saying Mr. Thompson doesn't have any, just that we don't remember one. I'd like to be convinced that Mr. Thompson is the sort of candidate I can pull the lever for without any reservations. Right now I'd pull for Mitt, but I have significant reservations. I might pull for the former VA governor whose name I've momentarily forgotten, but that also speaks to part of his problem. The prose presented in this piece is the sort of rhetoric Reagan was good at delivering, and Lord knows we need more of that again.

Jim Gilmore is the Virginia Governor you're thinking of. If I thought that Jim Gilmore had a better shot at winning, I would probably vote for him. He is a conservative who has experience running the levers of government.

Thompson's senate career seems largely forgettable. You could stick any amorphous R in his seat during the years he was in Washington and not changed the course of anything.

It is also true that generally the taller candidate wins (although GWB proved to be the exception to that rule). Thompson is 6'6" and would tower over anyone on the dem ticket.

Run like Reagan!

One has never run anything. He just played an executive of the DA's office on TV.

The other was so incompetent at running the State Dept. that Negroponte had to be brought over to run operations.

Yeah...that's a winning team.

I love Condi, but I'd prefer to see her run for DiFi's seat when she retires.

so you can't see either getting the nod ...? ok.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

or maybe even a Rice/Thompson ticket, although I'd like to know more about her domestic policy views before throwing in on that one.

Right now there aren't any clear CONSERVATIVE leaders in the Republican field. I'd vote for Thompson before McCain or Guiliani, although right now I'm a toss-up on Thompson over Romney. If someone can point to an example or two of good fights Thompson led while in the Senate, I'll switch to solidly Thompson over Romney. It's not enough to just have good rhetoric, it also needs to pair with deeds. Which of course is where Romney is weak. Okay, I've just talked myself into Thompson over Romney, because Thompson's rhetoric is better than Romney's without the possible flip-flop baggage.

too early for me to think about supporting anyone.Thompson's stance on issues however are closer to mine than any other so called conservative.

"A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington

America is the only one who can solve our border security problem. Mexico's largest industry is repatriated monies from illegals in the United States. They're not going to "fix the problem" because it's not a problem for them. It's a huge financial boon.

We are the ones with a border security problem. That's why, if we want to fix it, we will have to act unilaterally.

That's why we need to get serious about border security. If we were to cut off the flow of illegal immigration, the Mexican government would be under pressure from it's own people to enact reforms. Reforms based on capitalism & freedom would create prosperity in Mexico. Such reforms would not come easy. In fact, it may be painful at first. It may even be violent.

Some say that strong-arming Mexico is cruel. What's even more cruel is to allow the status quo to continue.

If we're not careful, we'll end up with a communist regime in Mexico. We almost did with Obrador in the last election. Mexico is governed by an oligarchy of about 200 or so wealthy families that will do anything they can to keep their power. The last thing they want is reform.

www.scottbomb.com

Well...except when he said that Roe was "bad medical science." It's a judicial opinion, not medical science. It was published in the Supreme Court Reporter, not the New England Journal of Medicine.

I think that's rather poor communication on his part.

don't you think, since the decision is based on medical science (trimester, viability, and all that). You are beclowning yourself publicly.

Since you aren't familiar with the subject this link might help.

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

No amount of blogging on wikipedia or answers.com can transform a legal opinion, Roe v. Wade, into medical science.

n/t

"Thompson, meanwhile, advocates rolling back Clintonomics, fighting crime with tougher sentencing and the death penalty, reducing welfare rolls, enacting strict term limits, etc. On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it. Cooper accepts money from the tobacco industry (a major Tennessee employer) while leading the anti-smoking crusade. Thompson proudly puffs a pipe."

National Review, June 27, 1994

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy that, like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson seems to have made a pro-life conversion. And if he's now anti-McCain-Feingold, that'd be a positive development also. But this idea that he somehow Fred Thompson is the "tried and true" conservative that might jump in the race is a complete farce.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544266/p...

Actually, Fred Thompson is reported as pro-choice as late as 1996.

"Thompson says he’s pro-choice" Washington Monthly, 12/01/1996

I'd love to hear what has made him change his mind.

He made pro-life votes all through his Senate career. I'm still waiting for Romney to explain his statements two years ago.

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

but I did it to musings on another thread.

What you've done here is simply dishonest.

You've obviously found the entire quote but you didn't see fit to present it all.

The entire quote reads:

Though Thompson says he’s pro-choice, his voting record on abortion issues (which includes opposing fellow Tennessean Henry Foster’s nomination for surgeon general) has earned him high marks from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. He has also won the backing of the tobacco industry and the NRA. (Washington Monthly, 12/1/96)

If you ever do a stunt like this again you're gone. Rombot or no rombot.

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

I wasn't dishonest in the least bit. In the lightening round with Chris Wallace on FNS, he said that he was "pro-life." Here he said he was pro-choice. He was a "with restrictions" type of pro-choice, so since most of the bills that came before the senate were restrictions of the most modest sort, it's not exactly difficult to rack up an apparently strong pro-life voting record while remaining pro-choice.

He still doesn't explain what has changed his position.

To state that his position was that he was "pro-choice" is not dishonest. I'm interested to hear him say what has changed. We're waiting, Fred. :-)

like "Gestapo" and do some quick groveling were I you. Lord knows I've run my mouth off where I shouldn't have more times than I can count and I'm thankful that Moe has patience with me, so take it from a currently forgiven transgressor, you are way over the top with that comment. You can do way better. You should. Quickly.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

can u block me?

are you just stupid today?

He's trying to help you out.

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

Then please, oh please...I hope you can find it somewhere in your Fred Thompson-loving heart room to forgive me. Show me the error of my way.

Forgive me for I have sinned.

I'll spend the rest of the day saying Hail Mary's in repentance. :-P

But since I frequently suffer from bouts of public stupidity I'm pretty good at recognizing it. Not only did you hit it, you upped the ante with this comment.

Dude, it's just politics. Not like it was personal or anything. Don't make it that way.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

But obviously other people do. That's their problem, not mine.

from bitter experience, if the guy you're pissing off is the guy with the big harpoon, then it automatically defaults to "your" problem.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Certain german police had big effective weapons to crush dissenters as well, I hear.

What in the thunder has gotten into you?!?!?! You're not normally goofy, and now we have this alternate personality posting and an extra sign on.

If I didn't know you were normally sane, I would swear that Carrie just took over a very important part of your brain.

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

being patently dishonest. And you are now. It isn't easy to be pro-choice when each and every Defense bill he voted for forbid abortions in military hospitals. There were votes to restrict abortion funded by USAID funds. Etc.

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

You can be pro-choice and vote against funding of abortion as a fiscal conservative.

I'm anti-HPV, but that doesn't mean that I think that the government should fund Gardasil vaccinations.

I would like to make one small, pedantic point. When you omit part of a quote, it is standard practice to insert an elipsis (...) in its place in order to alert the reader that is some (possibly significant) context has been left out. We still have to do the work of finding the missing segment, but at least a good faith marker has been left.

who at this point seems to be generating quite a bit more interest than your guy......I mean come on. He hasn't even decided to run, and you are painting this guy to be unfit.

Is your confidence waning in your guy?...you seem worried.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Thompson has a very solid Conservative voting record in the Senate. That's the elephant in the room for you, because you can't argue against it. It's all right there.

Your boy Mitt has a far more questionable record - in word and deed. Even some of your lists of his accomplishments are pretty disingenuous...

For instance, covering the $3 billion shortfall wtihout raising taxes? WOW!

But sorry, it had little to do with him and everything to do with the fact that the country as a whole went from a recession to an economic boom during his time as governor, and tax receipts and state revenues blasted through the roof as a consequence. This has happened in states all over the country, where just the roaring economy alone took states(including my own state of Arkansas), from deficits to big surpluses. The politicians like to take credit for this, but it's empty rhetoric and borderline dishonest to credit a newfound budget situation due to a nationwide economic swing to something you did.

Also, as others have said, there is just something a little too... "slick" about Mitt. The Bill Clinton reference earlier in the thread is actually spot on. He just doesn't seem very genuine. Way too calculating somehow.

Of course, his constant flip-flopping doesn't help that perception. Things like saying "I don't line up with the NRA!" just a couple of years ago after stymeing gun rights but now bragging that he's a "lifetime" member of the NRA...

which he just signed up for in August - as he starts running in a Republcian primary.

What a wanker.

1. If you keep spending a ton of money, you will erase the ability of economic growth to wipe out deficit (see Romania.) Mitt Romney vetoed spending and kept it in line - which allowed the economy's increasing activity to erase those deficits.

2. As opposed to Fred Thompson's "flip-flopping" from being pro-choice to now, quite suddenly, being self-declared pro-life?

As opposed to him supporting McCain-Feingold to now (allegedly) being against McCain-Feingold (as if the First Amendment should be subjected to an outcome-test.)

Now, just like Mitt Romney has flipped to all of the correct positions, I'm glad that Fred Thompson has converted. But that doesn't impart executive experience and the ability to lead the large aparatus of the government. Thompson has absolutely no demonstrated ability to do this.

Mitt Romney's record as governor is every bit as conservative as Fred Thompson's senate record. The difference is that while Fred Thompson seems to have generally known how to vote the way the Majority Leader told him to vote, he wasn't a leading voice for any conservative causes during his time in the Senate. Certainly not the way Mitt Romney was a leading voice for preserving the definition of marriage or fighting embryonic stem cell research and cloning in Massachusetts.

Bushidocrusader, you have hit all the marks exactly right. One of the main things I have gleaned from this thread is that people are sick and tired of professional politicians running the show. IMHO that was part of what cost the Repblicans the Congress and was perhaps even explains why they behaved the way they did while in office. I think it is also a reason the current Congress polls so poorly today. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Fred Thompson is clear spoken, has a great presence, and is certainly conservative. At this point, there is no other declared candidate that comes close. Each of the Declareds has his strength, but each also carries too much baggage.

Draft Fred, our country needs him.

He's practically running AGAINST Massachusetts. No one expects him to win it. I think that Romney would hold all of Dubya's states, and I think that he would stand a good chance of tipping Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan where his father was a popular governor. Pawlenty and Coleman might even be able to deliver Minnesota.

If Hillary taps Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson, that could imperil our chances of holding Indiana or New Mexico, so we may end up needing to pick up an additional state beyond what we won in 2004, and there is little doubt in my mind that an articulate Republican presidential candidate is going to do nothing but outperform Dubya in the 2008 elections.

...may say otherwise. If that does turn out to be the number, as rumored.

They probably would have to disagree with you about the "appeal" factor. As, of course, would I. :-)

Corporations can't donate money.