From what I've read, it's probably because he's the only one who flat out said he would uphold the 2nd Amendment to it's intended purpose.

That and he said (paraphrasing) owning a firearm is a God given right, not a government given right. :lifter

An excellent argument for Fred.
 

It's a long read, but a good one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/..._thompson.html


Mulhern's arguments are well- reasoned.
Fred's chances are looking better all the time.

I would have preferred to watch it live but t will be rebroadcast on MSNBC at 9pm EST...

Not stupid...I originally was upset it was on so early til I dug a bit. ;)

Actually, that was a very smart move on CNBC's part.

With the debate at that time, NBC along with the other major news networks, were able to lead off their World News Tonight programs with the debate. Just as people are getting home from work. Then to re-air it later.

It should make more people more interested in watching the re-airing, which would benefit the GOP candidates, IMO.

To borrow a familiar line....

Reagan wasn't only a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, he was also it's President, at one time.

Fred impressed me in his first outing the other night. Loooooookin' strong. Got that Tennessee thang goin' for em too. It'll be inte resting to see how much the bankroll factor comes into play now.

Anything's better than the following 5 words though... HILLARY CLINTON COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

FRED'08!

Seems to me that the press is ganging up on him, makes you wonder if they are scared of something!!!

Here's my reason!!
 

Here's my reason why I'd vote for Thompson:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opin..._will_have_the


Need I say more?

Latest edition of "The Economist" was not very flattering. http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=9946981

October 13 - 19th edition.

A thinly veiled political attack...

The Onion slam dunks another great one. I believe it is about damn time we had a president with a trophy wife.

On a serious note, does having a smoking hot younger wife really appeal to the core of the Republican "values voters"? Perma-tan, bleached hair, controversial chest...don't get me wrong, my vote falls squarely on Thompson...and his wife. :D

I personally believe that Thompson and the policies he proposes are the most important thing, but I know some Republican voters, even here in Kalifornistan are looking at him in a negative light solely due to his wife. As frivolous as that may be, it could very well change the numbers when voting time comes. Does somebody with a hot wife 20 some ought years his younger really appeal to the values based voter, especially in those blood red states?

::walking lightly on political eggshells::
Shawn

Yes, post a picture of the wife, please. :munchin

Here you go RL...

Attachment 8338

Nope, he doesn't. I don't like him as a candidate for other reasons, but among -many- conservatives that I know (and I'm in a red state), the opinion is that he is just another Hollywood type who used his celebrity to bag a chick that would've never looked twice at him otherwise. Superficial, phony, fake boobs, fake tan, fake everything....... doesn't really help him push the "good ole' family values boy from Tennessee" image. He's be a lot better off if he had a wife his age (who didn't have bolt on tits).

It's not my opinion, but it definately exists, especially among middle aged conservative women.

Uh, that "article" is in The Onion. :D

Pat

A little quick to judge the women do you think? What is your evidence?


Whats there to be upset about besides the fact that you might not be able to pull something like that when your his age :munchin

mdb23 = FRED envy

We should all be so lucky as to have a younger woman...at any stage in our lives.

Note: If you're 18 years of age or older, she shall be no more than 24 months your junior. BAD JU JU.

As for candidacy and chances. There are only two people with a real chance. Rudy & Hillary.

It's obvious that Hillary is the go to woman (or is it man?) for the Democratic Party. While I like Fred as a candidate, I'm a realistic Republican, and I know it's unrealistic for Fred compete with Hillary. The GOP will advance their candidate based solely on who can hang with Hillary, and I believe Rudy is the only Republican who has a proven track record against her and our only chance to win.

My prediction...Hillary vs. Rudy in the finals.

Hope = Rudy can salvage a win for us.

Reality = Hillary will win.

#

#

[/QUOTE]

Hopefully this will change your prediction. Historically the White Male voter has determined the outcome of Presidential elections. Example Bush carried a 26-27 point advantage over sKerry. The Democrats have continually tried to solve the problem of White Males fleeing the liberal democratic agenda. The current polls show that Hillary is recording record lows in the White Male vote. The difference indicates Reaganesque type point differential in this all important group. If she tallies the current poll numbers of 11 percent of the white male vote her thumping will be resounding.

To win she will have to garner all black and hispanic votes, plus capture the majority of white females. Okay, this is your "sleep comfortable pill" for the night. Democrats have not collected a majority of the white womens vote since 1964.

You read it here, regardless of which candidate the Republicans put up they are assured of a victory against her. Now all bets are off if Hillary does not get the nomination, as the point spread will change in the white male and white female groups. :munchin

CoLawman,

Great info. You never cease to amaze.:D

Funny thing you mentioned "sleep". I'm about to hit the rack now.

If it comes down to Hillary on the Democrat side, and someone else on the Republican side, Hillary will lose. People in America aren't going to vote in a woman.....at least not for a while.

Did you read the part where I said that it wasn't my opinion, but that it is a position that I have heard expressed (repeatedly)?

Take the personal remarks and disagreements to PM and stay on topic here.

TR

Well, I can definitely state as an American I would not vote for that woman. Ever.

"That woman", LOL.

The Democrats aren't ready to vote in a woman yet, either.

Hillary will still get the nomination, though.

She's more of a man than any of her Democratic opponents.

I wish all politicians would be this direct.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/fred..._terror_co.php

I like Fred's ideas.
His "Four Pillars" haven't received much media attention.

http://www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/Speec...2-fd9405b2efe0

The "Four Pillars" part:

We are still feeling the effects of these reductions today. We have major shortcomings in U.S. defense capabilities. To confront these shortcomings, we must address several key priorities:

First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent - and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation.

Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a "Million-Member" ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow's threats as well as today's.

Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old...twice the age of most of you. The Army's main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use.

We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs.

Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation's finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families.

And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report.

These four pillars of a revitalized national defense are part of a much more detailed plan that must include, among other initiatives, enhancing the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces to hunt down terrorists; rebuilding the Navy to show American resolve, full time, in trouble spots; strengthening our intelligence gathering and analysis; procuring modern long-range cargo aircraft to project power anytime, anywhere; building a robust missile defense system to defend our homeland, our troops and our allies from ballistic missiles; and ensuring the means to protect our space-based assets and cyber systems.

:munchin

I disagree with the premise (unstated assumption) of your question,
which is that because he is a General officer, he is intelligent.

As for being SF, IF he is in fact he did graduate the SF Course, there's a good chance he did it during the years where some were able to get a "paper tab."

This has NOTHING to do with "Fred Thompson for President" and screams of a personal agenda.:rolleyes:

Eagle

General Kerr on a Hillary Steering Committee
 

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3...e-70a16edc311b

It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.