Fred Thompson interviewed by Chris Wallace this morning.
You know, listening to him, you can have a lot of trouble not getting mesmerized by his sonorous voice. I wonder which candidates will seem lightweight alongside him -- purely as a matter of form, not substance. I'd say, #1: Mitt Romney.
ADDED: Here's the video. I had trouble getting it to play, but fiddle with the buttons and you can probably get it to work.
MORE: Here's some better video (of a different segment of the show).
११ मार्च, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
In view of your comments when Ford dided, I would think this observation would appeal to you: "one advantage you have in not, you know, having this as lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world."
IMO, he's right to think that it's not necessary to be in now to be in for '08 - Newt has made the same point repeatedly about whether he's in or out. The longer you're in, the more it costs, and if you already have a high enough profile, as Thompson and Gingrich do, then it matters a lot less if you announce now or in the fall than it would if you're, you know, the junior senator from Illinois, someone who has to earn attention...
His comments about campaign finance reform raise a red flag for me but this is great, exactly what you'd expect from Thompson:
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.
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody ... And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
I could stand to hear some more from Thompson.
All the candidates will seem lightweight alongside him. His very presence is the epitome of moral high ground. The sort of candidate who would have done extremely well in a more muscular age of America.
For purely aesthetic, style reasons I can only imagine how interesting a debate between Obama and Thompson would be. Charisma vs. Gravitas.
Fred rules!
It might be that Thompson could get away with talking sense. That'd be a nice change.
Well righties have based our foreign policy on a sci-fi series 'Battlestar Galactica', and modeled the DOJ after a psycho-drama '24' - why not have an actor running the whole show. A running mate logically would then come from a bass fishing show.
Bill Dance for Veep!
Who said these words?
"We're the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve and see what we're willing to do in resolving the situation that we have."
a) Fred Thompson
b) King Leonidas
Not so sure Rudy Giuliani look presidential in drag: SolidPolitics.com
Hell the Moonbats should love Thompson...he had even more to do with Nixon's resignation than Hillary did....
Thompson in 08!
Sorry Ann...not the best of Flash programmers...saw your Instapundit entry and I didn't know the Tennessee blog had linked to my entry....I told the guy via email I had a newer player for flash 8 but I couldn't afford the upgrade yet :)
Press pause twice :)
"... but fiddle with the buttons and you can probably get it to work."
There is SO MUCH that can be done with this line. On so many different topics. Nice one.
Jeff
I was indeed aware Thompson has been a politician before.
Perhaps the left is just upset because unlike Gore, Thompson could actually carry Tennessee.
Trey
Well, the one thing we know is that Al Gore has carried about a dozen more states than Sir Trenton could (hint: IMDB).
Henry Fonda as Lincoln looks presidential. Your fella looks like a nonendomorphic Newt.
A little face time on FriendlyFaux with Kissy Wallace should make some of you hairbrains leap with glee.
Look at the one answer ol' Simon loved...the one about creating special rights for gays...
hmmmm...does that mean by not creating special rights to get them up to the same standing everyone else has that it is ok, defacto, to condone lesser rights?
I do remember back to the civil rights act days when the southran good ol boys trotted out the same argument for blacks...."now we don't want to give them no special rights do we?"
He would do well to go back to commanding aircraft carriers in Tom Clancy movies. Granted the bella voce but his ship has sailed.
hdhouse:
You very conviently left out the part where Thompson said that gays should have the same rights as everyone else.
But then, that's just not good enough is it?
Gahrie said...
You very conviently left out the part where Thompson said that gays should have the same rights as everyone else."
THEN he is for gay marriage? You concede that when he says:
"And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays.."
So that's what he means by that statement..level field..everyone same...good to know.
Gahrie: it is one thing to be able to read. We all can read. It is quite another to understand the effect of the words. ... but you're young yet. You'll catch on.
Part of what I love about Thompson is that he did what I think all politicians should do - get elected, serve honorably for a short period of time, then go backc to their real life. My opinion is that most of the corruption in politics revolves around just the opposite - people who try to make their fortunes in politics. I suspect anyone who has spent a large portion of his life in that profession.
hdhouse:
We've had this conversation before. Gays have the right to get married. Just like everyone else, they can marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender, providing that they are not already married.
Creating a new right, the right to marry people of the same gender, is one of those special rights we on the Right oppose.
Well righties have based our foreign policy on a sci-fi series 'Battlestar Galactica'
Er... what? Have you actually watched the show?
Gahrie and hdhouse,
You're both mistaken.
Gay men (and women) have the right to marry, whether the marriage is to a member of the opposite sex or to a member of the same sex. If two men want to get married, today, in America, they can get married.
What they can NOT automatically do is have the state recognize their marriage. This is because NOBODY -- not heterosexuals, not homosexuals, not bisexuals, not people who have sex with goats, nobody -- has the right to government recognition of their marriage, or to the government benefits that accompany that recognition.
The government recognizes heterosexual marriages and gives them benefits not because people have a RIGHT to such things, but for the simple reason that the vast majority of people engage in heterosexual marriage, and have therefore decided to vote themselves benefits.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा