"... but he's independent in his thinking and his voting record. He has a commanding television presence that makes every other politician in America jealous."
So said Sen. Lamar Alexander about Fred Thompson.
Do you want Fred Thompson in the race?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
Yessss, please. Reagan charisma with serious conservative credentials and a solid resume. And he dated Lori Morgan, too.
Run, Fred, run.
I've got a man crush on him, and I'm not afraid to say so.
(But, I'm still leaning Rudy's way)
He is probably the best hope for the GOP in terms of a serious candidate that has a chance at winning. He emanates leadership and strength, something Shrub had for about 10 minutes at one point.
His voting record is solidly conservative which will make the base happy plus the charisma factor will simply overwhelm Hillary and make Obama look like a pre-schooler.
If he can put people away every week on "Law & Order," he can't be accused of being soft on crime.
He gave '300' a good review, so I'd give a qualified 'yes,' but I'll reserve my final say until we hear his review of 'Transformers.'
Headlines confuse me when Fred and Tommy are both running.
I have no inkling about his previous executive experience. But Fred looks good on TV, I guess that's enough.
I can see why he appeals to inside the beltway establishment types, but he's not really a man of the people. I can't see him having very broad appeal.
As a VP candidate he wouldn't be quite as bad.
Generally speaking, this surge of support for Thompson seems like it's a reaction to the weakness of the leading GOP candidates.
I think he adds to the GOP field and makes it a better fight.
I was struck by that reference to Chuck Hagel thinking about running. Perhaps he wants to be the GOP anti-war candidate of the left. However, he not a snowball's chance in hell of getting anyones nomination.
MM, here is the bio on the Senate www page:
THOMPSON, Fred Dalton, a Senator from Tennessee; born in Sheffield, Ala., on August 19, 1942; attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; graduated from Memphis State University 1964; received J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University 1967; admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law; assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“Watergate Committee”) 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001]); resumed acting career.
I was one of those who helped build the Thompson bandwagon. I have been supporting/urging him to run since early January.
Drill Sgt, thank you for posting that, but again, a big beef against many Senators is that they lack executive experience. I don't know what kind of Executive Thompson would be.
F. Thompson can team up with T. Thompson on a ticket to secure the billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles vote.
Fred's appeal is a sad reflection on us. Our culture has become a Hollywood sound set mentality where all problems are solved, each scene is perfectly choreographed. Real life doesn't work that way, his Senatorial career was lackluster.
Yah, damned right I want Fred in the race. Put Fred at the top to bring in the conservatives, and Rudy as his running mate to bring in the moderates, and it will be a nicely balanced ticket.
Rudy is still my candidate as well. Although, I can see why Thompson is peeling off Rudy voters.
I think Rudy has more experience dealing with the vitriolic and lying press, which is largely responsible for Bush's 40% approval rating and for the trouble we are having now with the Congress.
It amuses me to no end that the left is constantly pilloried for taking their cues from a bunch of no-nothing Hollywood celebrities, but when it comes to actually putting such people in positions of power, it is Republicans who fall all over themselves to actually do it.
Although if Thompson got back together with Lorrie Morgan. . . Well, that is one FLILF.
It amuses me to no end that the left is constantly pilloried for taking their cues from a bunch of no-nothing Hollywood celebrities, but when it comes to actually putting such people in positions of power, it is Republicans who fall all over themselves to actually do it.
"assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“Watergate Committee”) 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001]); resumed acting career."
Right.
It amuses me to no end that the left is constantly pilloried for taking their cues from a bunch of no-nothing Hollywood celebrities, but when it comes to actually putting such people in positions of power, it is Republicans who fall all over themselves to actually do it.
The inverse is also amusing - the left has no problem ascribing nearly God-like status to any Hollywood celebrity who will publically dis Bush, but if you have an actor run for public office they spend all their time talking about how he or she is not a serious candidate.
Plus you are overlooking a major point - Thompson, as shown above in a comment detailing his experience - has a resume that rivals any of the current candidates on either side, while the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins,and Alex Baldwin couldn't tie their shoes without a valet to help them.
There is a difference between worshiping Sean Penn and voting for Fred Thompson - a big one.
Nobody knows more about commanding presence than Lamar Alexander . . .
"It ain't about you, Fred. 'Bout what they need." The main fuel beneath Thompson, it seems to me, is that he's a much more conservative candidate than Giuliani, and a lot of conservatives really, really want to have a conservative candidate that they can vote for who they also feel is a credible candidate. I think everyone gets that Brownback isn't a serious contender; Thompson could be.
I'd agree with the prevailing sentiment - I want Fred in the race. I also want Newt in the race, and frankly, I'd like Olympia Snowe in the race too. After six years of that man, I think a real debate about Republican principles, about where we are as a party and where we go from here, would be profoundly healthy.
Re XWL's comment - I feel better that I'm not the only straight comenter here to admit to a man crush. LOL.
Sloanasaurus - Actully, the President's approval rating is more like 30%. And its down there more because of his failed policies on, well, just about every front than because of the 'lying, vitriolic press.' Between 9/11 and Hurrican Katrina, the mainstream media did everything but fellate President Bush. Don't try to tell me that they were overly critical of him.
Re Bush's approval ratings, they're basically as Wade says, for basically those reasons, although it's facially absurd to suggest that the media supported Bush until Katrina (he enjoyed a brief respite after 9/11, but prior to and shortly after that time, they have been effectively an autonomous arm of the Democratic Party), and as others have noted, Congress still has lower approval ratings than Bush.
I don't think that's what Wade was saying - I thought his point was that Bush was all-but fellated in the media from the time of 9/11 to the time of Katrina, the latter "breaking the spell." I could buy that there was a post-9/11 honeymoon, but it was well over before we liberated Iraq and long gone before election '04.
Drill Sgt, thank you for posting that, but again, a big beef against many Senators is that they lack executive experience.
I think there is a bit more emphasis placed on executive experience than is deserved. I'd argue that both Bush and Carter had executive experience as governors and have done a pretty dismal job.
At this stage I'll go with a commanding presence over 'executive experience'.
He took Gore's seat. Has anybody noticed how huge Gore has gotten? He's gobbling resources! He looks like a penguin. Maybe he's trying to replace the disappearing penguins by becoming one himself.
Has Gore passed 250 yet?
And its down there more because of his failed policies
What failed policies? Are we in a recession? No, the economy is doing great. Have we been attacked in America in the last 5 1/2 years since 9-11? No. From these standpoints, Bush's policies have been successful.
"Don't try to tell me that they were overly critical of him."
No. They merely (among other things) used fraudulent documents in a blatant attempt to illegally influence a Presidential election. That was before Katrina, wasn't it?
Not to worry Kirby: Al Gore has bought calorie offsets; thousands of Bangladeshis are starving on his behalf so that he can remain caolorie neutral.
Generally speaking, this surge of support for Thompson seems like it's a reaction to the weakness of the leading GOP candidates.
Say what? What "weakness" are we be referring to? The GOP slate of candidates oozes gravitas. It reads like the batting lineup of the Yankees during the golden age of baseball. Boom!!--> home run. Followed by Boom!!--> home run. Followed by Boom!!-->home run. The Democrat candidates are a set of green ragtag lightweight pretenders by comparison, a litter of runts in which Hillary, even with 50%+ negatives amongst the general populace of voters, is the most robust runt.
Now if you said that the support for Thompson seems like a reaction to the lack of conservatism of the leading GOP candidates you'd be right. Notice though that a major part of the conservative base isn't on board the draft Fred Thompson train, if you've been listening to James Dobson.
Really, Slonasaurus? We haven't been attacked in 5.5 years? That's funny, because prior to 9/11 we'd been attached a grand total of three times in 212 years. If presidents deserve credit for going five years between terrorists attacks, then Bush hasn't done a better job of fighting terror than Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford/Carter, Reagan, or Clinton. In all of those prior presidental terms, it was perfectly possible to hijack planes and to fly them to buildings. Planes were hijacked all over the world during that time. I find it hard to believe that the world went from being perfectly safe on September 10th to being a hard, dangerous place on September 12th, and that Bush deserves all that much credit for preventing terrorist attacks by radical Islamists.
In fact, I would say that he's been putting us -- or, at least, my friends in the military -- in harm's way unnecessarily.
I believe that Senator Thompson will be our next President. He is the only consistent conservative with some name recognition in the race, so I support that. He has charisma and is an actor, that will win over people who are swayed by such things. I think there are a lot of people who are.
Trey
Wade_Garrett said...
"[P]rior to 9/11 we'd been attached a grand total of three times in 212 years."
Inapt comparison. For your point to stick, the timeframe would have to be limited to the period in which militant Islam has been working to attack the United States. I would argue that 1991-present is an overly-generous but reasonable timeframe, picking 1991 since Bin Laden says that a significant part of his beef with the United States is our military presence in Saudi Arabia, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity on the point.
To be really accurate, you also have to account for how many attempted attacks have been thwarted, and I doubt any evaluation of that will be possible for decades to come - not necessarily in relation to the availability of the data, but in relation to how long it takes for both sides to be able to dispassionately evaluate Bush's performance without partisan considerations getting in the way. It may take some time: Lincoln was despised by Democrats in his day (worse even than Bush, since they assassinated him), and it took decades for them to get over LDS.
It's even more absurd to claim Bush got laudatory coverage regarding Katrina.
That he was able to say "nobody anticipated the breach of the levees" and Diane Sawyer didn't spit her coffee all over him and say: "Are you fucking kidding me. What are you, some kind of moron?" proves that Bush got laudatory coverage regarding Katrina.
He has a conservative bearing and a conservative presence but he's independent in his thinking and his voting record.
He has a commanding television presence that makes every other politician in America jealous."
He also has no money and thus no chance.
Have we been attacked in America in the last 5 1/2 years since 9-11? No.
Actually yes.
You keep forgetting the Anthrax attacks. And we don't even know who committed those.
Have over 3500 American citizens been maimed and nearly 30,000 others been wounded in terrorist attacks. Yes.
Have thousands of our allies been killed in their home countries in terrorist attacks. Yes.
Have the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, and the number of deaths (even excluding Afghanistan and Iraq) continued to climb. Yes.
Saw a report that Thompson leads the Republican pack for net positives. Obama on the left and Thompson on the right - we love candidates about whom we know very little. Ignorance makes the heart grow fonder, apparently.
Have over 3500 American citizens been maimed and nearly 30,000 others been wounded in terrorist attacks. Yes
Thats disingenuous. You're equating troop deaths on the FEBA with American's killed on 9-11.
He is the only consistent conservative
What makes him a consistent conservative. Certainly nothing about his personal life (e.g., dating Lorrie Morgan among many others hardly makes you socially conservative). I saw his interview. He sure did dot the "I am pro-life" 'i'. But when it came to crossing the 't', his response was pure "I will appoint judges that follow the constitution" Giuiliani obfuscation. On everything else, he seems like your typical run-of-the-mill right-of-center Republican. He's certainly no Sam Brownback.
"proves that Bush got laudatory coverage regarding Katrina."
And this statement proves something as well.
Thats disingenuous. You're equating troop deaths on the FEBA with American's killed on 9-11.
How so? By your reckoning, we shouldn't include any of the emergency responders or the passengers on United 93 in the dead on 9/11. After all, the firemen and police would have been fine if they hadn't been stupid enough to go into the towers. Likewise, the passengers on Flight 93 died fighting terrorists, they weren't killed by them.
Well it's come to this - we need someone who looks and sounds good.
Barak or Fred - ooooooooo, they moooove me.
New point - America has never elected an anti-war candidate to be President.
And to all the ones who like to say failed policies when discussing Bush - are you economically worse off than the Clinton years?
Here's help with the answer: NO. And neither is America.
Like Chris Rock, "I'm Tired, tired, tired of N-----s (my definition is knee-jerk anti-Bushites of any race who don't have enough brain cells to actually see an issue past their hypocrisy).
"N-----s has got to go!"
a lot of people are worse off now than in the Clinton years.
And, to the extent that the country is doing well now, it is in large part because we are mortgaging our future -- of COURSE the country is going to do well in the short term if you cut taxes and pump billions of dollars into the economy through increased spending.
I just turned 27. Something tells me that, when I am 47, I'll be paying for your economic prosperity in the year 2007, B, you idiot.
I was listening to talk radio and the Paul Harvey commentary or whatever comes on at 11:45 every day. And I heard a familiar voice there - but told myself that it couldn't be. Well, it was, Fred Thompson doing the Paul Harvey daily commentary.
I would suggest here that someone whose voice recognition is that high (and likely even higher when combined with an image of him) would have some advantages when it comes to running for president.
I think that I can recognize Hillary's voice (see Ann's thread on her voice), John Kerry's, Al Gore's, and our presidents going back at least through Reagan. Probably Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
a lot of people are worse off now than in the Clinton years.
Who exactly? I am assuming you mean financially and I eagerly await an answer besides "the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer."
And, to the extent that the country is doing well now, it is in large part because we are mortgaging our future -- of COURSE the country is going to do well in the short term if you cut taxes and pump billions of dollars into the economy through increased spending.
I just turned 27. Something tells me that, when I am 47, I'll be paying for your economic prosperity in the year 2007, B, you idiot.
Poor pitiful you. When I was 27 I was serving my country and saving for my retirement and not whining like a baby about my elders living well. But then I am a conservative.
Roger, I loved the calories offsets bit!
NSC - Do you want a medal, or a chest to pin it on? I'm in law school, after which I am going to serve my state as a prosecutor. I realize I'm being enormously liberal with my career choice. Also, I realize that I'm being a spendthrift by failing to save for my future while I'm in graduate school.
And its perfectly legitimate for people of my generation to complain about the Baby Boomers taxing the country to spend money on themselves and then leaving us with the bill.
No, I don't want a medal - I have a few and while I am grateful for them they don't define me nor do I need them to defend my opinion.
My point still stands - I didn't whine about my elders enjoying the fruits of their labor because I knew that I, too, could enjoy a good life if I got a good education (which I paid for - graduate school too by the way), worked hard and didn't complain.
Oh, and I know quite a few liberal prosecutors and a few conservative public defenders - politics knows no job definition.
I don't really get your point though about taxes. First you seem to be complaining about cutting taxes while spending too much (something I agree halfway with - we do spend too damn much but also we still tax too much) and then you seem to be complaining about being taxed to death. Which is being done to you?
well Wade
I guess the people that commented after you proved my point about the hypocrites that complain about Bush's failed policies.
Cutting taxes in a time of war? That's never been done before, particularly a war that has turned into a full-out occupation, requiring overtime pay for every soldier involved.
Furthermore, the entitlements to whose coffers I contributed (before school, when I was working) and to which I will contribute for the first X number of my legal career, will not likely be there when I am old enough to use them.
Thirdly, the federal debt, which had been decreasing for many years, has escalated enormously in the past five years. Sooner or later the overnment is going to need to raise taxes to service all of that debt.
i would like to see how many votes he gets.
requiring overtime pay for every soldier involved.
Perhaps you misspoke but the military does not get overtime pay. They get the same pay no matter how much they work. Now they do get hazardous duty pay, flight pay, and other special duty pay depending on their specific career field and duty posting, etc., but overtime? If only . . .
Again, Wade . . .
I echo Mike's comments. You are obviously sharp, but . . .
I try to imagine a country where only facts and reason are argued, not the left's mostly hypocritical lines - the right has it's own, if lesser, problems in that area - get parroted by the MSM and repeated without much thought or examination by weel-meaning but not too deeply-thinking people such as . . . well . . .
By the way, on the "failed Bush policies" front . . .
Why is activity in IRAQ less on the front pages these last 2 weeks . . .
I just love it when the wierdright talks economics. Like this choice one:
RogerA said...
Wade--one effect of the Bush tax cuts was to increase the tax burden on the upper quintile from 81 to 86 percent--so those rich folks are paying even more after the Bush tax cuts."
Gosh, can you think of any more plausible explanation that would explain this "even more"? Think hard? Little thinking beanie on...
ohhh and this gem:
"No, it hasn't. Federal debt, properly measured as a % of the GDP, is about average and has been been falling lately."
now that one is a laugh riot. i've got a big word for you. it is "cumulative". before you go "whoa there big fella" if I run a 3% deficite this year and 3% the year before, my deficit is now 6% and that runs on top of my new 3%. Do you run your household year by year in red ink because it is an acceptable percentage of the GNP? ahhh are we harking back to Mr. Reagan's voodoo economics?
Please oh kind wizard, please cite a year when tax cuts resulted in less debt...can't can you? its cause any year you care to pick the deficit increased.
and FRED Thompson...oh god...if there is a god, bring him on.
if I run a 3% deficite this year and 3% the year before, my deficit is now 6% and that runs on top of my new 3%. Do you run your household year by year in red ink because it is an acceptable percentage of the GNP?
6% of What? A 2 year GNP?
Honestly, do you believe that the government has ever run it's budget like a household?
Oh, and c'mon knee jerkers:
Why is activity in Iraq not splashed on the front pages as much these last 2 weeks?
It must be due to those "failed Bush policies" - the religious rosary of Bush-haters.
We've already decimated the liberal myth of the "bad economy" of Bush.
Honestly, so many intelligent lefties with so many New York Times talking points. I truly believe that if the Times ceased publication tomorrow, mass liberal suicides and overwhelming of counseling centers would take place.
Some day, before a liberal dies, he or she is actually going to be confronted on an issue that he/she hasn't read the talking points for and will actually have to think for his/herself.
It would make the race more interesting. Right now, he seems to be the only candidate palatable enough to social conservatives but mainstream enough to win a general election. That said, he was very pro-trial lawyer in his time during the Senate and I am not sure how the Wall Street types will feel about him.
Roger Roger Roger...take a deep breath...do some math ok?
If the taxes placed on the upper percentage group has effectively decreased or at worst stayed the same (make that a constant) and the amount of money that "upper quintile" (notice I didn't use uper-rich) contributes into the system INCREASES (the right side of the = sign) what does that tell you about the variable?
Anyone? Anyone? Voo-doo what? Anyone?
And to think that anyone would think that the effective rate increased on an individual basis on the uberrich. Ohhh the humanity.
Thanks--I understand the math; perhaps I wasnt explicit enough in my point: I should have trotted out the tax break for wealthy concern that the left seems so concerned about. While your explanation is interesting, it is totally irrelevant to the point that I made and that the statistic bears out: The tax cuts resulted in greater progressivity. What part of that are you having a problem with?
The debt part Roger.. and please, while we are at it, define "progressivity"..."continuous improvement"...nahhh individual debt and national debt are on the increase..., "employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas"... most certainly NOT, "as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are"...well you have me there Roger. Things have gotten very much better for that favored quintile by any measurement you care to provide...and you can do a quintile comparison and bear that out.
No your point falls dead in its tracks. It is the Rush Limbaugh "world looks flat from the 30th floor" observation.
The garden hose of interest rates has run flat out for years and we have, overall, barely kept even. You may trot out Wall Street but in the last 4 years we have moved from about 11800 to 12300...not even inflation. Would you like to talk national debt? Personal debt? Trade inbalance? Foreign owned debt? Personal household inflation idexing? (ohhh I get you don't want to count food and fuel).
to your blessed quintile there is no difference except for a sizable increase in average earnings. Go find someone at the 50%...dead mindstream...talk to that person.
You make no points other than the glorification of the gap between rich and average, rich and above average and particularly rich and poor. That may be liberal mantra but it also the truth.....
Or can't you handle the truth?
HD, Puleaze--how many topics can you conflate into a single paragraph?
Once again, read carefully: The BLS Statistic I quoted suggests the 2003 tax cuts had the effect of increasing the amount of tax revenue paid by the top quintile of income earners (the upper class?) from 81 percent of total tax revenues to 86 percent of total tax revenues. Progressivity, as I am sure you well know, is the concept that higher earning folks should pay more than lower earning folks; Tax rates are significant primarily because the influence market behavior of individuals; the bottom line of progressivity is not the tax rate, but the amount of tax revenue collected. The more tax revenue paid by the "upper class" the more progressivity the tax code has.
All the other points you raise are interesting but not germane to the very simple point suggested by that one statistic.
Ahhh--I see the problem HD; what we have here is a failure to communicate: Follow VERY carefully and move your lips if necessary:
My point to Wade was:
"Wade--one effect of the Bush tax cuts was to increase the tax burden on the upper quintile from 81 to 86 percent--so those rich folks are paying even more after the Bush tax cuts. I am assuming a liberal would be interested in the redistributive effects of the tax cuts.
You may want to also consider the difference between income and wealth; incomes probably vary and as one gets older, their income declines (generally) but their wealth can well increase.
Finally, looking at quintiles of income, while interesting, doesnt tell you all that much. The only test I know of people getting better is that they rise into higher quintiles over time. Unless you disaggregate the data, the quintiles dont tell you very much."
Oher people, B and Mike, I think talked about debt etc. I made three observations, none of which you have really addressed--
If you would like to debate the BLS statistic as well as my definition of progressive with me, great--But I am not responsible for any one else's assertions.
roger doger.
ohhh if two little pups bite at one's heels, which to kick first...!
what is being suggested here is jamming more into quintiles. "older people getting better"? better at what?
One effect that you fail to recognize is that as the uberrich get richer and the near-uberrich gets richer, that blessed quintile that you feel drives America stays the same but the mean within that quintile moves. and i've always wondered this:
giving money back in filthy amounts to the several million uberrich..as opposed to the 60 million in the middle....it was supposed to have a huge effect on consumer spending..remember?...so if you want durable goods other than airplanes to bounce it is a FACTOR OF POPULATION SPENDING NOT OF THE AMOUNT BACK. 2 million uberrich may need only 10% new refigerators... thats 200,000. 10% of the middle may want them and its 5,000,000.
you guys are like the doublemint twins, i swear.
no. i won't apologize. the rogera post came right before the Roger Roger Roger tsk tsk tsk...if you were observant you wouldn't have missed that.
besides, this is about Fred Thompson running for president....and a good and merciful god will let that happen.
who..not that...but i digress.
i read just fine. i read your number a long time ago.
Post a Comment