Fred Thompson, President?
 

I've seen mention of Fred Thompson on this and other forums, thought I would share.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257858,00.html

Fred Dalton Thompson!
 

Fred Thompson would be a very, very good choice. He has common sense, experience in the world of politics and presence, IMO. A former Federal Prosecutor and current Chair of the State Department International Security Advisory Board. Allegedly has a clean background and was very committed and active during his time as Senator. Dropped out of politics after the death of his daughter. The only other viable choice I see would be Romney.

Giuliani - Dem in Republican Clothing. Pro gun control. Did a fine job as Mayor and I'd vote for him for Mayor of another large city. (Perhaps he'd like to migrate to N'Orleans or Philli?) Don't want him for President & Commander in Chief.

Gingrich - Dalliances during the Clinton impeachment kept him from leading the Senate to an impeachment majority, which is the only reason we will have to face Hillary in 2008.

McCain - Beginning to flip flop. Weak on the 2nd Amendment and control of illegal immigration. I sense kind of a bizarre personality. Does anyone else?

In my opinion he is the best hope for a "Ronald Reagan"--like Conservative.

He is smart, likable, clean and can communicate / connect with the American people.

If anyone is interested...there is an on-line petition to Draft Fred Thompson...

http://www.petitiononline.com/FDT_08/petition.html

I signed the petition

Concur with your analysis of the field and of Senator Thompson.

I would prefer him over any of the anounced candidates, except possibly Gingrich, who is unelectable. Thompson also appears very statesmanlike and "looks" presidential. Rudy does not.

It would be nice to see him speak out a little to confirm his current positions on taxes, defense, the 2nd Amendment, immigration, role of government, international affairs, domestic policy, etc.

TR

Senator Thompson has been guest-hosting for Paul Harvey recently. "Back issues" can be heard here: <http://www.paulharvey.com/>. Commentary generally at the end of the broadcast.

CL31542

I heard his immigration comments today.

HOLY COW!!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NmNDBhNjhlYWU=

"March 20, 2007 12:35 PM

Southern Exposure

By Fred Thompson

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:
hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee."

I could help support this man and be motivated by his candidacy.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

TR

Holy cow is right, I like what I read. Thanks for the article and the link TR.

I think the responses on this website echo the state of the nation: a couple of candidates that are "Republican" and then Fred-a classic Regan Conservative. I did a research project on Senator Thompson two years ago and was quite impressed. The parallels between him and Regan are more than slight:

a) Both are actors that the common middle of the road person will give some trust to simply because of name recognition (sad but true-elections are won and lost on much more than policy)

b)Both are excellent communicators. Both Regan and Thompson succeed in the area of Bush's greatest weakness: they communicate their thoughts on the offensive. They do not respond from a particular statement that may or may not be true but rather lay out their position on an issue and go from there.

c)Both exude strong leadership in the face of a scary enemy (USSR & Islamofacists)

d)(most important) Both are unapologetic conservative Americans. Both clearly believe in America, Americans, and the conservative nature of our democratic republic, and neither gives a damn about what the anti-American side thinks.


I believe that Thompson, like Regan, combines Pro-American spirit and strong leadership that Americans are craving/needing at the current time. Just like in the late 70's, Americans are tired of hearing everyone blame America first, and they are tired of having a president who does not lead (though I may agree with Bush's policies, he simply does not grab the situation by the balls and lead).

Seems my search for a candidate to support is at an end. Thompson in 08!

Fred Thompson
 

I've alway's like Fred Thompson, although he was in Tennessee, he was well like here in Kentucky.

Fred actually dated country music singer Lori Morgan. Cant blame a man there.

I'm excited to actually see a conservative candidate. Here's to Fred Thompson in the primaries!!

Patriot Vol. 07 No. 12 | 23 March 2007

Friday Digest

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Democrats fear Fred Thompson... and should

Beyond the field of announced GOP candidates with questionable conservative pedigrees, there is a potential suitor on the horizon who could close the wide breach between Republicans and conservatives. Fred Thompson, the former Republican Senator from Tennessee, is perhaps America’s brightest and most capable prospect for President in 2008.

Most folks probably recognize him as District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC’s “Law & Order,” or maybe from one of his big-screen roles like “Clear and Present Danger,” but I have had the privilege of knowing him for 20 years as just Fred. I know well that he is as capable of navigating the clear and present dangers facing our nation and restoring law and order to our constitutional republic as are the characters he plays on screen.

Last week, when Sen. Thompson was queried about a possible presidential bid, he replied, “I’m giving some thought to it,” saying he would make a decision in coming months. “It’s not really a reflection on the current field at all. I’m just going to wait and see what happens.”

Notwithstanding his tip of the hat to the current field of GOP contenders, Thompson made it clear that he would be watching them: “I wanted to see how my colleagues who are on the campaign trail do now—what they say, what they emphasize... and whether or not they can carry the ball next November.”

In other words, like most conservatives, Fred is concerned about the electability of the current field of Republicans—and for that reason, we want him in the lineup.

The GOP frontrunners—Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney—each have their own peculiar weaknesses. Common to them all, however, is their lack of bona fides among conservative voters—the Republican base. Without the conservative vote, it is highly questionable whether any one of the current frontrunners could pull off a convincing primary victory.

Democrats clearly understand their Republican opponents’ limitations, which is why they are confident that one of their far-left-of-center frontrunners, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, will win the presidency in ‘08.

While there are conservative candidates for the GOP nomination, any of whom could deservedly win the Republican primary, none of whom would be likely to carry a majority in the general election. This list includes some true luminaries of the conservative movement: Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Jim Gilmore, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Gov. Tommy Thompson and possibly former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

However, if conservatives and the rest of the Republican electorate want to line up behind the most capable, qualified and electable candidate in the ‘08 presidential race, a man who can carry the Reagan mantle and draw an enormous crossover vote (as President Reagan did in 1980 and 1984 see 1984 election map), then call out Fred Thompson.

After earning his J.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1967, Thompson had a private law practice and later served as an assistant U.S. attorney—making his mark weeding out corruption. After his prominent role as Republican counsel during Watergate, it was Thompson’s 1977 investigation that toppled the crooked administration of Tennessee Democrat Gov. Ray Blanton. In 1980, Thompson was tapped to serve as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in 1982, special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In 1985, the Blanton scandal was the subject of the film “Marie,” in which Thompson played himself—because the director could not find an actor who could capture Thompson’s power and determination. His success in that film led to his roles in more than 20 other big-screen hits including “No Way Out,” “The Hunt for Red October,” “Class Action,” “Cape Fear” and “In the Line of Fire.”

In 1993, Tennessee’s Republican leadership convinced Thompson to return to public service in a campaign bid to fill the unexpired Senate term of then Vice President Albert Gore. Fred then demonstrated his formidable skills on the campaign trail. Despite all the support Bill Clinton and Al Gore could muster for popular six-term Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper, Thompson won a landslide victory in 1994, garnering 61 percent of the vote to Cooper’s 39 percent—the largest victory margin in any statewide political contest in Tennessee history.

Thompson’s success in his first campaign for national office did not pass without substantial note from the Democrat National Committee. He won by an even wider margin in his 1996 re-election bid. Rest assured, the DNC fears a Thompson draft for the presidency.

Thompson’s record as a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003 shows that he was on the right side of every critical issue. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997 to 2001, he voted for national-debt reduction, the all-important balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a presidential line-item veto to eliminate congressional pork and efforts to privatize elements of Social Security. He supported legislation in the interest of free enterprise and opposed many regulatory and tax measures. He opposed growth in social-welfare programs, including expansions in Medicare and welfare for immigrants. He supported efforts to decentralize or disenfranchise unconstitutional government programs.

Fred voted for limits on death penalty appeals, product-liability punitive-damage awards and class-action lawsuits. He opposed decreasing restrictions on wiretaps. He supported increased oil exploration, including ANWR drilling permits, and is an advocate of free trade, understanding well the underlying national security implications. He supported an amendment to prohibit flag burning and voted for numerous measures in support of Second Amendment rights. (Charlton Heston campaigned for him in ‘94.)

On family and social issues, he opposed “marriage” between homosexuals, partial-birth abortion, cloning, the addition of “sexual orientation” to hate-crimes legislation and legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted for many education-reform measures, including the provision of school vouchers.

Most important, Thompson’s support for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom was, and remains, steadfast. Thompson has the authoritative grasp of national-security issues necessary for a commander in chief, particularly with respect to the long-term jihadi threat.

Lamar Alexander filled Thompson’s seat in 2003 when Fred withdrew his re-election bid following the tragic death of his daughter. Today, Fred is married to Jeri Kehn, and they have a daughter. He also has two grown children from a previous marriage and five grandchildren.

Currently a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, Fred’s conservative credentials are unassailable.

Former Senate Majority Leader and Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, who appointed Thompson as Republican counsel to the Watergate Committee 35 years ago, is unabashed in his support for Thompson in ‘08: “I keep sending up trial balloons telling people they should get him to run. So far no one is shooting them down—including Fred.”

My friend Zach Wamp, a conservative member of Tennessee’s congressional delegation, spoke with Fred last week and has reached a similar conclusion about his candidacy: “There is a real, real strong possibility that he will run.” Zach and more than 40 other members of Congress have scheduled a meeting with Thompson on 18 April, and they will encourage him to run.

Observing the current political climate, Fred notes, “I think people are somewhat disillusioned. I think a lot of people are cynical out there. I think they’re looking for something different...”

“Something different”? How about a plain-speaking and plain-dealing American—a charismatic leader right out of the Reagan mold, whose character, integrity and experience are head and shoulders above the rest of the field?

Fred Thompson is the right man at the right time.

The more I read about Mr. Thompson, the more I like.

Same here but if he doesn't run it won't matter how much we like him. I hope he does run, but every day he sits and waits he falls further and further behind in the money race and as we all know money is very important to winning an election.

True, rubberneck. Let's hope he gets off the pot sooner than later. Think I'll sign the petition GreenSalsa posted above...can't hurt.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/R...on_is_for_real

Thompson Is for Real
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, April 2, 2007



WASHINGTON -- In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has improbably transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in national polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles, because he is filling the conservative void in the Republican field of candidates.

Republican activists have complained for months that none of the big-three contenders -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- fits the model of a conservative leader for a conservative party. The party faithful have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan. But in conversations with them the past year, nobody mentioned Thompson as the messiah until he appeared March 11 on "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace."

In this Saturday, April 29, 2006, file photo, actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and his wife, Jeri, arrive for a party at the Macedonian Embassy in Washington following The White House Correspondents' Dinner. Thompson sat in on the CIA leak trial on Thursday, Feb. 8, 2007. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf) His statement to Wallace that he was "giving some thought" to a presidential run generated a reaction that surprised Thompson. In the first Gallup poll that listed Thompson (March 23-25), he scored 12 percent -- amazing for someone out of public life for more than four years who has not campaigned. More important than the polling data is his backing within the political community. Buyer's remorse is expressed by several House members who had endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

Thompson's popularity reflects weakness among announced Republican candidates, as reflected in the Gallup survey. Sen. McCain, no longer an insurgent but still not accepted by conservatives, is stuck in the 20-25 percent range. Former New York City Mayor Giuliani has dropped precipitously from 44 percent to 31 percent, amid attacks on his ideology and personal life. Most startling, despite a well-financed, well-organized campaign, Romney has fallen to 3 percent.

Sophisticated social conservative activists tell me they cannot vote for Giuliani under any conditions and have no rapport with McCain or Romney. They do not view Sen. Sam Brownback, representing the social right, as a viable candidate. They are coming to see Thompson as the only conservative who can be nominated. Their appreciation of him stems not from his eight years as a U.S. senator from Tennessee but his actor's role as district attorney of Manhattan on "Law and Order." That part was molded to Thompson's specifications as a tough prosecutor, lending him political star power.

Thompson's political origin as a protege of Sen. Howard Baker, leader of the Tennessee GOP's more liberal wing, prompted hard-line Senate conservatives to consider him a little too liberal. Actually, his lifetime Senate voting record as measured by the American Conservative Union was 86 percent. It would have been close to 100 percent except for his repeated votes supporting McCain's campaign finance reform. None of the big-three Republicans has been so consistently conservative as Thompson on tax policy, national security and abortion.

The principal complaint about Thompson concerns not his ideology but his work ethic. The rap is that he does not burn the midnight oil -- the identical criticism of Reagan, before and during his presidency. That carping may betray resentment that Thompson has emerged as a full-blown candidate without backbreaking campaign travel and tedious fund-raising.

Thompson's critics assert that, bored with his lucrative career as an actor, he has enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame created by a chance TV interview and will not really run. But he privately assures friends that this is for real. His performance on "Fox News Sunday" was no accident. He went on the program for the purpose of unveiling his possible candidacy.

Thompson did not leave public policy when he left the Senate. He has served on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He hardly knew Scooter Libby but felt he was getting a raw deal, appeared in his courtroom and helped raise money for his defense fund.

Friends bet Thompson will run. He clearly wants to try, and his wife, Jeri, is all for it. Seeking the best timing, he wants to avoid the pitfalls encountered by Democrat Barack Obama, who may have damaged himself by starting his campaign too quickly.

I met Fred Thompson in 1974 as Howard Baker's 31-year-old minority counsel on the Watergate investigation. I considered him cool, careful and conservative. He still is, and that is how he would run for president, which appears in the offing.

Get Going then
 

If he's going to he needs to step up fairly quickly. Hillary just crossed the $24,000,000 mark for campaign contributions for the quarter.

Well, after reviewing this thread and a little googling of my own I'll support his bid for the presidency. God help us if Hillary gets elected.

So a president should be chosen based off the amount of money he/she can raise? I'm really getting tired of hearing how Clinton has raised X amount of campaign funding. BFD. Its certainly not like she needs to buy a lot of advertising to increase her public exposure; she's either (inexplicably) loved or (rightfully) loathed by just about everyone in the US already, and you either believe the message she's sending, or recognize it as just more lies to gain support.

Fred also has great public exposure. People recognize at least his face from his TV roles, and his role has usually been one of power and reason, something you should expect from a world leader. Therefore, those that have a hard time separating TV from reality already have a good impression of him as the voice of reason and the one who makes the final decisions. He doesn't need $24M, should he decide to run. He only needs to clarify his platform and leverage his political experience.

Who ever runs against the Dems is going to have to be able to attract the independents.......... that is where one third of the votes are.


Jim

I haven't seen anyone I like on either side. I kind of figured this election was going to be a "lame duck." If he's willing to run he will have my vote.

Interesting, that...here's an informative little article I just read today.


http://www.townhallmail.com/slxsono_jpddjsk.html

Funny Money
By Mike Gallagher
Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Send an email to Mike Gallagher Email It
Print It
Take Action
Read Article & Comments (12) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

A funny thing happened on the way to Hillary Clinton's announcement that she's raised a record-setting $26 million dollars this quarter.

It's one of those funny things that most Americans probably won't notice. But once in awhile, those pesky reporters serve a purpose. Sen. Clinton's refusal to come clean about what part of that $26 million is for the primary and what part is for the general election can give us a strong glimpse into the secretive, ambitious, scheming ways of the woman who wants to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.



US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton waves to supporters before NJ Governor John Corzine endorsed her candidacy for President of the United States, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, April 2, 2007. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES) Allow me to explain.

The Clinton campaign announced that 50,000 donors contributed the $26 mil. Trouble is, since they won't reveal how much is for the primary and how much is for the general election (something the John Edwards campaign did disclose), there's no way of knowing how much of that money she can actually get her hands on. Because under campaign fundraising laws, she cannot touch any money donated for the general election unless she wins the primary. If she loses the primary, all the general election contributions must be returned.

For all we know, Team Clinton has collected $1 million dollars for the primary and $25 million for the general, making her "record-setting" fundraising quarter a laugher.

Few, if any, political observers believe that the Clintonistas don't actually know what the breakdown is.

So what we're probably left with is one, big, fat headline that is utterly meaningless: "Hillary Raises Record $26 Million." Which is precisely what she wants.

Politically speaking, Hillary Clinton is all about style over substance. Forget the truth, she and her husband worship at the altar of focus groups, polling, surveys and looking good in front of the masses.

It seems pretty obvious that the only reason that the Clinton campaign is refusing to reveal the financial breakdown is because the truth about how much she can actually spend is a lot less splashy a story than the oft-repeated $26 million dollars.

This deception is significant because it should help voters understand how she operates. She's counting on most Americans not paying attention to the news media's questions about the difference between the primary and general election fundraising.



US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton waves to supporters before NJ Governor John Corzine endorsed her candidacy for President of the United States, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, April 2, 2007. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES) Hillary Clinton will do – or say – anything to get elected. As a U.S. Senator, she won over many rural upstate New Yorkers with loved ones serving in the military by pretending to be in favor of the war in Iraq. Once her presidential aspirations became public, she suddenly turned away from the war and joined the chorus of fellow liberal Democrats by demanding a withdrawal from Iraq.

Dick Morris once told me that the Clintons are almost like political robots. They breathe, eat, sleep, and live their lives with a singular purpose: get elected to the next office they’re running for. As a team, they've done it for decades.

While it's disturbing that Hillary Clinton won't come clean about the financial breakdown of the $26 million dollars she's raised, it's not surprising. She would never let truth get in the way of a good headline.

This is who she is.

Looks like he is getting more serious.

With his gravitas, love to see him in a debate with Hillary or Obama.

RL, you going to the soiree in OC for him?

TR

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3429.html

Fred Thompson Gears Up

By: Mike Allen
April 6, 2007 09:41 AM EST

Fred Thompson, the “Law & Order” actor and former senator from Tennessee, has moved beyond pondering a bid for the White House and begun assembling the nucleus of a campaign should he decide to run, according to people involved in the effort.

Thompson has not yet decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination. But “he is getting more serious every day,” said an adviser familiar with Thompson's plans.

Thompson’s coming-out as a candidate-in-waiting will be a May 4 appearance at the 45th annual dinner of the Lincoln Club of Orange County in the heart of Ronald Reagan country in Southern California. The invitation was widely sought by aspiring Republicans, and his advisers expect considerable media attention around the visit. But there are no plans now for an announcement then.

Thompson will also stoke speculation with a meeting of House Republicans April 18 at the Capitol Hill Club, organized by Rep Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), the most vocal promoter of a Thompson candidacy. More than 60 House Republicans have indicated they want to come to hear the former senator, according to organizers.

Though Thompson has shown well in some polls since he said he was actively considering a presidential bid, the hurdles to such a late start are many. And some people who worked with him in the Senate question his willingness to do the brutal work of a national campaign. But friends and advisers say Thompson has been buoyed by the response so far at a time when many Republicans are openly expressing disappointment with their presidential field.

“The outreach to him has been so overwhelming that he is now starting to talk to people to really calibrate what it would take to run a successful campaign,’’ the adviser said. “He’s talking to some of the top unaligned strategists and fundraisers. He’s said: ‘I’m seriously considering it, and I’m happy to hear your thoughts and ideas.’”

Thompson will not make a final decision until at least May and may delay any announcement until even later because he recognizes the benefits of being “a non-candidate candidate,” according to advisers.

“As soon as you announce, they start throwing spitballs, so why not wait?” said a Thompson friend involved in the discussions.

The Sleuth column at WashingtonPost.com reported a recent lunch Thompson had with Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Ed Gillespie, and Thompson recently lunched at a Washington hotel with former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

Thompson also has met with other big Republican players, including some who work for other presidential campaigns, sources said.

Thompson got 12 percent among Republicans in a recent USA Today-Gallup Poll, exceeded only by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Thompson has also done well in recent polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and California.

The former senator, who did not seek reelection in 2002, lives in McLean, Va., and just finished a three-week stint filling in as host of Paul Harvey’s radio programs. He was in New York on Thursday for NBC’s “Law and Order,” which wraps up taping for the season later this month.

Thompson’s backers say they recognize that a key hurdle to attracting establishment support will be questions about the fire in his belly. “This accelerated action is his answer to those questions,” said a person who has talked with Thompson about the candidacy.

If Thompson runs, he’s likely to stress his willingness to take on the biggest issues, including nuclear proliferation and the entitlement crisis, advisers said. “People are disappointed that for the last two presidencies – almost 20 years now – we’ve seen people not held accountable and a cavalier attitude toward basic governmental responsibilities,” said the person who has talked to Thompson.

Didnt see this link posted yet... its got video and audio of Thompson speaking on the issues.

-Dub

http://www.grassrootsvoter.com/gallery.html

Some of you QPs should contact him and offer your services as a foregin policy advisor while he is forming the 'nucleus' for his campaign! TR is a beast on just about everything it seems. Go for it. :D

Fred Thompson's blog post at Red State:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/fore...ates_of_tehran

New Website!
 

You might check out fred08.com

Looks like things are getting more serious. There's rumor he'll announce his candidacy at a dinner next month.:D

This might explain why he didn't jump right in...
 

Former Sen. Fred Thompson announced Wednesday that he has indolent lymphoma and that it is in remission. The following is his full statement to FOX News:

"We have all seen the courageous battle that Elizabeth and John Edwards are fighting, and there are so many others. Fortunately, there are an increasing number of good stories because of the medical advances that have been made.

"I have friends in politics, some in Congress, some running for President, and others who have successfully dealt with cancer. It is certainly no respecter of persons and totally non-partisan.

"That point was driven home to me about 2 1/2 years ago when, shortly after a routine physical, I was diagnosed with what the doctors call an indolent lymphoma. Of the 30-plus kinds of lymphoma this is a 'good' kind, if there is such a thing.

"I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future — and with no debilitating side effects.

"I am one of the lucky ones. There are many lucky ones today. And for all of our diversity, we share one thing in common — a deep appreciation for the fact that we live in the United States of America and have the best medicine and the best doctors the world has even known."

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...265269,00.html

:(

Great interview.

I am finding more that I like about Fred.

Apologies for the length.

TR

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/528aylls.asp

From the Courthouse
to the White House
Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role.
by Stephen F. Hayes
04/23/2007, Volume 012, Issue 30



A strange thing happened a few weeks back when I went to the Café Promenade at the Mayflower Hotel for an off-the-record interview with an unpaid adviser to the non-campaign of unannounced presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson showed up.

Thompson was there to have lunch with Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a powerhouse consultant with ties to the White House. The two men worked together in the fall of 2005 on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Thompson had invited Gillespie to lunch to discuss a potential presidential bid.

On March 11, just a week before, Thompson had appeared on Fox News Sunday and told Chris Wallace that he was giving "serious consideration" to running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Ever since, advisers on other campaigns have tried to figure out how he'll affect the race if he runs.

Several patrons in the restaurant recognized Thompson. One well-dressed man with thick white hair approached him for an autograph. It's possible that this man wanted the autograph because Thompson served for eight years as a senator from Tennessee. But it's more likely that he wanted a memento of the day he ate at the same restaurant as Arthur Branch, the sagacious district attorney on Law & Order; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit; Law & Order: Criminal Intent; Law & Order: Trial by Jury; and Conviction, a spin-off of, well, you can probably guess. The same man returned to the table twice more. Each time Thompson put his conversation on hold and graciously tolerated the interruption.

After an hour, Thompson and Gillespie--currently chairman of the Republican party of Virginia--rose and left the restaurant. Ten minutes later, Thompson walked back in with former senator Bill Frist. They were led to a different table, but Thompson's waitress was the same. She laughed as she took his new order. Thompson says this second lunch was unplanned. Although he and Frist talk daily, the two Tennesseans met this time by chance. Finding they both had gaps in their schedules, they spent the next two hours at Café Promenade talking about a Fred Thompson for President campaign.

There is some discontent among Republicans with the current choices for the party's nominee in 2008. The complaints are well known: Senator John McCain, the maverick Republican, is too much maverick and not enough Republican. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is thought to be too willful and too liberal: He recently suggested he would allow his new wife to attend cabinet meetings and reaffirmed his support for federal funding of abortion. Mitt Romney seems pleasant and competent, but pleasant and competent doesn't beat Hillary Clinton. Senator Sam Brownback is unknown and uncharismatic. And former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is from Arkansas.

According to an adviser to one of the leading candidates, the rationale for a Thompson run is best illustrated--as so many things are--by The Simpsons. In one episode, Homer Simpson's civic-minded neighbor Ned Flanders tells a large crowd of fellow Springfield citizens that they must choose someone to lead an anticrime campaign in the town.

"Who should lead the group?"

"You," shouts a man from the crowd. The entire mob begins to chant.

"Flanders! Flanders! Flanders!"

When Flanders humbly begins to explain that he doesn't have much experience in such matters, Moe the Bartender cuts him off.

"Someone else!"

The crowd joins in.

"Someone else! Someone else! Someone else!"

One obvious advantage Fred Thompson has is that he's someone else.

In recent Republican presidential preference polls, Thompson tends to run third, behind Giuliani and McCain but ahead of Romney and the rest of the field. In a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll released last week, Thompson came in second, just ahead of McCain, with support from 15 percent of those surveyed. In late March, Thompson won a straw poll of Republicans in conservative Gwinnett County, Georgia, earning more votes than all of the other candidates combined. And Iowa Republican party executive director Chuck Laudner told the Washington Times, "He's the biggest buzz in the state."

Representative Zach Wamp, a fellow Tennesseean who is running an effort to "Draft Fred," tells me he expects 60 congressional Republicans to show up early next week at a meet-and-greet with Thompson. Mark Corallo, who has volunteered to answer press inquiries for Thompson, has been getting dozens of calls each day--not only from reporters, but from Republicans around the country who have seen his name in the newspaper and tracked him down at his private consulting firm to sign up for a Thompson campaign. Politicians are reaching out to Bill Frist to offer their support. Says Frist: "I have governors who have called me, fundraisers I've known from my days as majority leader who are ready to go."

All of this, for a candidate who has not yet announced for anything.

Last week, I went to Thompson's home in the verdant Washington suburb of McLean, Virginia, to talk to him about his prospective presidential run. We spoke for more than four hours about his life in Tennessee, his family, his acting career, his foray into politics, and his future.

I was 30 minutes late. Thompson, who was on the phone with Howard Baker, his political mentor, didn't seem to care. He hung up, extended his large hand, offered a friendly greeting, and led me to his office. We were alone. Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana.

The presence of the cigars and the absence of a press chaperone were clues that Thompson is taking a different approach to his potential candidacy. A campaign flack would have insisted on hiding the cigars--Senator, how did you get those Cuban cigars? Isn't there a trade embargo?--and might have dampened Thompson's natural candor. On subjects ranging from Social Security to abortion, the CIA and to Iran, there would be lots of candor over the next several hours.

And by the end of the conversation, two unexpected realities had emerged. If he joins the race for the Republican nomination, and if he campaigns the same way he spoke to me last week, Fred Thompson, a mild-mannered, slow-talking southern gentleman, will run as the politically aggressive conservative that George W. Bush hasn't been for four years. And the actor in the race could well be the most authentic personality in the field.

Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with primary the moment he announces. He comes across as a regular guy--"folksy" will be the political cliché that attaches to his candidacy--and punctuates explanations of his positions with the kind of off-the-cuff homespun witticisms that Dan Rather spent a career trying to come up with.

We sat facing each other in leather armchairs, and after some small talk I asked him what life was like growing up in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He began talking, and about 30 minutes later it was already 1994 and he was about to be elected to the U.S. Senate. I'd tried to interrupt with questions here and there, but he had a story he was determined to tell.

It's a good story. Thompson was born in Alabama and lived for most of his young life in Middle Tennessee. His father sold used cars and his mother took care of the house. Neither one graduated from high school, although Thompson's father earned his high school equivalency certificate later in life. His family ate dinner every night at 6:00 P.M. "It was like clockwork," he says. Thompson was not a great student in high school. At one point, he says, several of his teachers worked together to strip him of the title given to him by a vote of his peers--Most Athletic--because his grades were substandard. His father was something of a jokester, but also when necessary a disciplinarian.

"I grew up not having anything to live up to from an economic or professional standpoint, but having a lot to live up to from a growing-up and becoming-a-man standpoint," says Thompson.

That example would be important at a young age. Thompson married his high school sweetheart at 17, and together they enrolled at Memphis State University, where he studied philosophy and political science. Thompson worked several jobs to put himself through college and support a growing family.

"I sold clothing," he says. "I sold shoes. I sold baby shoes. I sold ladies shoes. I worked in a factory."

His wife's uncle and grandfather were both lawyers, and Thompson says he wanted to live up to the professional standards of her family. The law school at Vanderbilt University had seemed an unattainable goal for an underachieving high school student from a family without means. But it was a goal nonetheless. Thompson got serious academically as an undergraduate, and won admission.

Once a lawyer, he had a brief stint with the U.S. attorney's office, then went into private practice--"hung out my shingle," he says--and volunteered to work for Howard Baker's reelection campaign for Senate in 1972. Shortly after Baker returned to Washington he asked Thompson to join him for what he thought would be a short-term project. A special committee had been established to look into the Committee to Reelect President Richard M. Nixon, and Baker, the panel's top Republican, asked Thompson to serve as minority counsel. Thompson could often be seen at Baker's side as the investigation grew from a routine oversight hearing into the proceedings that would cause a president to resign. Thompson, who wrote a book about his experiences called At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee, asked the question that led to the revelation of the White House taping systems. "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?" And Thompson is often credited with feeding Baker the line that would become one of the most famous of an era: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

Thompson says he passed up several offers with big Washington law firms to return to Nashville, where he entered a private practice with two law school classmates. He took the case of Marie Ragghianti, the head of Tennessee's Parole and Pardons Board. Ragghianti had grown concerned about what she saw as a pattern of suspicious pardons ordered from the office of Governor Ray Blanton. Her suspicions were later confirmed and Blanton was forced from office in a cash-for-clemency scandal that continued until his last day.

Peter Maas, author of Serpico, turned Marie Ragghianti's story into a book creatively titled Marie and published in 1983. Director Roger Donaldson bought the movie rights and came to Nashville to interview the major players. After meeting Thompson, Donaldson asked him if he'd like to play himself in the movie. Thompson agreed.

Over the next two decades, Thompson would appear in dozens of films and television shows as a character actor, often one who personifies government strength. It is a role that seems to fit. "Literally, I don't think Fred ever acts," says Tom Ingram, a longtime friend from Tennessee who now serves as chief of staff to Senator Lamar Alexander. "He played himself in Marie, and he's been playing himself ever since."

When Donaldson needed someone to play the role of CIA director in his next film, No Way Out, he turned to Thompson. A string of movies followed: The Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder, Die Hard 2, Curly Sue, Cape Fear, In the Line of Fire. And there were cameo appearances on TV's Matlock and later Sex and the City.

Thompson never moved to Hollywood, choosing to stay in Tennessee, where he continued to practice law and remained involved in Republican politics. When Al Gore was elected vice president, Tennessee's Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, appointed one of his top advisers to serve until the 1994 elections, when a replacement would be elected to fill the final two years of Gore's term. Thompson's name came up early, and eventually, in July 1993, he filed papers for an exploratory committee.

Thompson knew from the beginning that it would be a difficult race. His opponent was Jim Cooper, a popular conservative Democrat who had developed a national reputation as a legislative expert on health care, widely considered one of the country's most important issues. Thompson started the race well behind Cooper. He told the Memphis Commercial-Appeal that he was a moderate Republican. The reporter who interviewed Thompson described him as "pro-choice," but noted that he supported restrictions on abortion at the state level and opposed federal funding. (A 1994 story in National Review also described Thompson as pro-choice.)

In a poll taken in February 1994, 36 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for Cooper, while just 17 percent supported Thompson. The Hotline, a Washington-based digest on campaigns and elections, reported the poll results under the headline: "They Know Thompson's Face, But Not His Name." It would prove to be an accurate diagnosis of Thompson's difficulties.

"For a year, I didn't scratch," Thompson says, looking back.

At the low point, Thompson met at a Cracker Barrel with Ingram. Thompson told his friend that he wasn't having any fun campaigning and was pessimistic about his chances to win. He was considering dropping out. Thompson had had it with the rubber-chicken Republican dinners and the rigors of campaigning across the state. "Fred was beleaguered by the traditional way of running for office," Ingram remembers. "He was expressing his misery over things."

Ingram had a question for Thompson: What would you do if you ran the way you wanted to run? Thompson thought for a minute, then said he'd shed as much of the campaign apparatus as possible and drive around the state in a pick-up truck. Ingram suggested he do just that, and Thompson thought it a good recommendation. Thompson would soon be known for his red pick-up truck. Cooper's campaign complained that it was a Hollywood-style gimmick designed to make Thompson look down to earth, and it surely was that. "But it was more than a device," Ingram insists. "It made Fred comfortable as a candidate. He felt liberated to just be himself."

Thompson ran on a strong small-government--even antigovernment--message. "America's government is bringing America down, and the only thing that can change that is a return to the basics," he said. "We will get back to basics and make the sacrifices and once again amaze the world at how, in America, ordinary people can do very extraordinary things." Thompson emphasized issues that would appeal to disaffected voters--making laws apply to the members of Congress who pass them; congressional pay raises; entitlement reform.

It was a message that began to resonate. Two months before the election, a poll by national Republicans put the race dead even. And as Thompson increased his advertising--allowing voters to put his famous face together with his name--he took the lead, and it grew. "Some people knew me and knew my face, but I started out 20 points behind" he says. "I just had to work at it until I raised enough money to go on television and then I went up pretty fast." Cooper asked for and was given free air-time for his ads after stations played movies starring Thompson. But it was too late.

Thompson won 61 percent of the vote, Cooper just 39 percent. Part of the explanation was that Thompson was swept along in the historic Republican tide of 1994. But Cooper would later say that he'd underestimated the political importance of Thompson's film career. "He was in so many movies," Cooper told the Nashville Tennesseean in 2002. "I should have been more worried than I was because that is a powerful way to present yourself to the public."

Thompson's new colleagues in Washington immediately tried to capitalize on his ability to communicate. Bob Dole, recently elevated to Senate majority leader, picked Thompson to present the televised Republican response to a national address by President Bill Clinton.

On Christmas Day, 1994, Thompson was a guest on ABC's This Week. Sam Donaldson opened the interview by telling viewers that while they might not know the name Fred Thompson, they might recognize his face. "I want to just show people how accomplished you are, because if they have been sitting at home saying, 'You know, I know this guy, I know this guy,' there's a reason," he said, before playing clips of the actor.

Thompson was at his most self-deprecating. "When they needed some middle-aged guy who'd work cheap, they'd call me for a little part and I'd go out there two or three weeks and knock one out," he explained to Donaldson.

Donaldson asked Thompson why he was chosen to give the GOP response to Clinton. "I want to keep boring in on this question of--perhaps you were chosen because the Republican leaders said, 'Fred Thompson is not just another pretty face.' I mean, Fred Thompson--"

"That's for sure."

Then Donaldson asked Thompson about presidential politics. "Who are the Republicans going to put up to run for the presidency in two years?"

"I think that it's going to be wide open," Thompson replied. "I think that there's at least a half a dozen people out there. There might be someone that hasn't been mentioned."

"Let me give you a name," Donaldson pressed. "Let me give you a name: Fred Thompson. Senator Fred Thompson."

Thompson found the suggestion amusing. "There's one thing, I think, for certain that I've observed around here over the period of time that I've been here, and watching all this for years, and that is when people come to town, somewhere along the line, if they do anything at all, if they're shown to be able to put one foot in front of the other, they're mentioned for the national ticket. So now you've mentioned me, and I appreciate it, so we can move on to more serious topics."

Thompson had not yet been sworn in.

In eight years in the Senate, Thompson developed a reputation for an independent streak, yet he compiled a voting record more conservative than one might expect of one who had described himself as a moderate in his first campaign. Over the course of his time in Congress he earned a lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union of 86 percent. He was not quite as conservative (using 2002 numbers) as Rick Santorum (87), Strom Thurmond (91), Trent Lott (93), or Jesse Helms (99), but more conservative than Arlen Specter (42), Olympia Snowe (52), John Warner (82), and John McCain (84).

His voting record suggests a strong belief in federalism. Thompson was frequently a lonely voice opposing the federalization of what in his view were state issues. His unwillingness to compromise on that principle even put him on the losing end of a 99-to-1 vote on the so-called Good Samaritan law, legislation that protected individuals from being sued if their good faith efforts to help someone in distress were unsuccessful. He thought it should have been left to the states.

Thompson also served as chairman of the Senate Government Relations Committee, which he used to investigate fundraising irregularities in the 1996 presidential election cycle. Republicans had high hopes that Thompson's inquiry would add to the political difficulties of the Clinton White House stemming from its malfeasance on campaign financing.

After the hearings ended, Fox News Channel's Brit Hume described Thompson as "flying high before his hearings . . . and shot down once they started and all the way through them."

Thompson says "the congressional investigative function is not a prosecutorial function" and acknowledges that the hearings produced "mixed result in many respects." He believes the criticism stems from the fact that "few people went to jail."

As Thompson considered his future, he began telling friends that he was not certain he wanted to seek reelection in 2002. He changed his mind after the attacks of September 11. Thompson, who served at the time on the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced in late September that he would run again. "Now is not the time for me to leave," he said. "This is the way now, it's perfectly clear, for me to contribute the most." He spent the next several weeks traveling to churches throughout Tennessee talking about the attacks and the coming U.S. response to them.

At a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on October 4, 2001, Thompson sounded a skeptical note about the prospect of reorganizing the federal homeland security bureaucracy. "The government, basically, cannot manage large projects very well," he said. "Maybe we can learn from our past experience with other government agencies and other crises and things of that nature and not make the same mistakes as we go about trying to rearrange these boxes and decide who reports to who and who has what authority. And maybe we'll take the lessons that we've learned from our other management problems in particular."

Then in late January 2002, his daughter Elizabeth Panici died suddenly following a heart attack. She was only 38. Thompson's friends say he was devastated. A month later he announced that he had changed his mind--he would not seek reelection. "I simply do not have the heart for another six-year term."

At a press conference after his announcement, he lashed out at the media for their intrusive coverage of his private life. "Every public official has to understand that he or she is a public official and that's the price you pay. For the most part, that's appropriate," he said. "That's the price your whole family pays. There are lines to be drawn. I think it's extremely unfortunate and uncalled for for the local newspaper to discuss the details of this. Her death obviously played in my decision, but the details of all of that, what news value does that have? Why did she have to pay that price? Why does her little five-year-old boy have to pay that price because her daddy chose to try to serve his state and his country? It's over the line and more like the National Enquirer-type stuff than anything else."

In his final months in the Senate, Thompson concentrated his efforts on legislation that would create the Department of Homeland Security. He fought efforts by Democrats to subject the new workforce to union and collective bargaining rules that apply to federal employees more broadly. The bill passed two weeks after the 2002 midterm elections, on a vote of 90-9.

"This is the most significant thing I've been involved in and certainly the most significant thing I've had my name on because it involves the main function of government, and that is protecting its citizens."

More than four years later, munching on a turkey sandwich and sour cream and onion potato chips at his dining room table, he displays an unusual willingness to second-guess his own decision. After Thompson criticized the growth of bureaucracy under the new director of national intelligence, I asked him why the new bureaucracy under Department of Homeland Security is any different.

"Well, to tell you the truth, in retrospect, we may conclude that it wasn't any different. But it got to the point where almost anything would have been an improvement," he says. "A lot of those agencies were in and of themselves dysfunctional, so bringing them together was not going to make everybody greater. . . . But you've got to start somewhere and you can't wait until everything is just right until you start coordinating. So we were kind of jumping aboard a moving train."

It was an admirably honest appraisal of what he once pointed to as the crowning achievement of his career in Congress. As we spoke, I was struck by the fact that Thompson didn't seem to be calibrating his answers for a presidential run. On issue after contentious issue, I got the sense from both his manner and the answers he gave me that he was just speaking extemporaneously. Many of his answers would drive a poll-watching political consultant nuts.

My suspicions were confirmed when Thompson asked at one point if he could have a transcript of our interview. "I found myself talking on some subjects that I haven't really thought that much about," he explained. "Oh, so this is what I think, huh?"

* Thompson says he came to respect George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign because of his plan to reform Social Security. Congressional Republicans considered the plan a political liability, and it went nowhere. Thompson says that although it was only tinkering on the margins of real reform, it was a good start. He won't share his own plan--"I'll roll that out at the appropriate time"--but the general principle he articulates sounds like a political risk.

"It's based upon the proposition that granddad and grandmom will be willing to sacrifice a little bit if they feel like it helps their grandkids avoid financial disaster, and that their sacrifice is not going to be wasted down some government rathole," he explains. "Under most plans, most good plans, you know current retirees probably would not be affected that much at all. . . . We've been operating under the assumption in this country that it's the third rail and that if you talk about it, those people who are most concerned about retirement programs will kill you. I don't think that's true."

* He believes that elements of the CIA were out to get Scooter Libby and his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby, though not the original leaker of the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, was convicted of lying and obstructing justice. "It makes me mad as the devil just to think about it," Thompson says. He had never met Libby when he volunteered to serve on the advisory board of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust. Is Libby innocent? Thompson answers with one word. "Yes."

Do you think there will be negative political fallout from defending the convicted former chief of staff to an unpopular vice president?

"I have no idea. I have a hard time seeing it. If I'm wrong about the temperature of the American people on this, then I'm wrong about a lot of things about the American people. And we might as well find out."

* I asked him about his vote for the Iraq war and the Bush administration's failure to explain to the American public the real story of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. I ask Thompson how it is possible that a majority of the country believes the Bush administration lied about Iraqi WMD, when the U.S. intelligence community and the world consensus was that Saddam Hussein had these weapons.

"Part of it had to do with what has become almost a knee-jerk suspicion on the part of a lot of people with regards to anybody in authority," he says. And then he directly faults the Bush administration. "A part of it has been the administration's inability to sufficiently communicate the reality of the situation. It's not just the president. . . . You have to have an organized, pervasive ability to get your message across and rebut erroneous misstatements of the history. It is amazing to me how something like this could be perceived so erroneously by so many people. Because we all
 know what the facts are. We've all seen the statements and the comments of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, and the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the list goes on and on and on."

Thompson slips into sarcasm. "It is amazing to me how a man that they say is so dumb fooled so many real smart people. But that's what they're saying about Bush. Bush
 canoodled the entire Democratic establishment. Absurd on its face, and yet some people want to believe that sort of thing."

Then he goes on to give a better defense of the White House than anything that has come out of the White House communications shop in four years.

The irony here is that intelligence services had consistently over the years understated the capabilities of enemies and potential enemies. Now, here there was unanimity among the intelligence services, some of whom are supposed to be better than ours. . . . People don't understand intelligence. They don't understand. It's seldom clear. It's often caveated. It's sometimes flat-out wrong. Different people often have different ideas. That's what a president is faced with. And some today would say that politically a president has got to have unanimity before he can make a choice. And then they say that if he has that unanimity, the president has to make that choice--at the same time talking about how deficient our capabilities are. But if those deficient capabilities produced a recommendation, the president of the United States and leader of the free world has to take that recommendation. That has been so faulty in the past. It's absurd. Presidents in the future, as always, have to make a determination based on a lot of things, and intelligence is one of them. And the president not only has the right to evaluate the intelligence that he's receiving, he has a duty to do that. He listens to the British. I mean, if history was any judge, I don't know about now, but if the Brits tell me that there's an [Iraqi] deal with Niger and our guys don't know whether there was or not, I tend to rely on the Brits. I mean, those are the calls the president's got to make, and the question is really: Which way do you want the president to lean? Caution--that it's probably not so? When bad news is delivered, he gets mixed messages, he gets various intelligence reports of various kinds. Did you want him all balled up in all of that, you know, trying to apply some kind of a scientific equation to it for fear that somebody in an intelligence committee is going to wave it around at a hearing later on or something like that? Is that what it's come to? If so, the world is going to be a lot more dangerous than it otherwise already is. You've got to exercise the authority and the responsibilities that you've been given. I mean, in this debate over intelligence and what it is and what it ought to be and how it's used and all of that, you know, [it] needs to be dealt with and laid out in a way that people can understand it. . . . The next report says somebody's got weapons of mass destruction, you know what're we going to do with that? You know, just because history--a cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, but he won't sit on a cold stove either.
* He is equally blunt about Iran. Thompson says that the actions of the Iranian regime--harboring senior al Qaeda leaders, funding and training Iraqi insurgents, supplying terrorists in Iraq with devices that are killing American soldiers--are acts of war. He stops short of calling for a military response, but seems to suggest that he would be saying something different if circumstances were different.

"Unfortunately, today it can't be considered in isolation, so you have to take into consideration our capabilities and our priorities worldwide right now. And unfortunately we're stretched too thin." Nonetheless, he says, the long-term objective in Iran is the same one that led to the Iraq war. "I think the bottom line with Iran is that nothing is going to change unless there is a regime change."

* In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.

"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."

Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," she told the American Spectator's Philip Klein.

Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.

One of the few times Thompson was unwilling to share his thoughts came when I asked him if he thought Rudy Giuliani was too liberal to win the Republican nomination and if Hillary Clinton could make a good president. The only question he would answer about his potential rivals concerned John McCain.

Thompson was one of four senators to support McCain in 2000 and served as the national co-chairman of his campaign. So I asked him why he's not supporting McCain again.

"You know the old joke about--what about me? As self-centered as that sounds, and it is, that ought to be the way it is." He adds: "Besides, you can't predict what's going to happen anyway, with any of them. Anybody could implode. Anybody could take off."

Before his appearance on Fox News Sunday, Thompson called McCain to let him know that he would announce that he was seriously considering a presidential bid. The conversation was friendly. "If we do this," he says, "we'll remain friends and we'll be friends after this."

There is considerable talk among the other Republican campaigns that the Thompson boomlet is driven by little more than celebrity. Maybe. But history suggests that Thompson may actually be underpolling right now. As was the case when he ran for office in Tennessee, he has a very recognizable face but his national name identity is actually quite low.

Gallup conducted a survey in late March asking respondents an open-ended question: "What comes to your mind when you think about former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson?" Sixty-seven percent of Republicans responded that they had no opinion of Thompson or were not familiar with him. And yet he shows up in the top three choices of potential Republican nominees in most of the polling that includes his name. As voters come to associate that name with a familiar and well-liked face, and if they get to see the personable Thompson on TV, Thompson strategists assume those polling numbers can only go up.

When Thompson met with Bill Frist at the Mayflower Hotel, they had important business to discuss. More than two years ago, Thompson had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is "indolent" lymphoma, a slow-growing form of the disease that is not usually symptomatic. If you're going to have one of the 33 varieties of lymphoma, Thompson says, this is the one you want. "It's easy to diagnose, easy to treat and easy to live with," Frist, a physician, confirms. But it sounds scary, the kind of thing that might spook potential primary voters if it were disclosed by an announced candidate.

"We thought we had to get it out early," says Frist, "in the sense that he's going to be announcing."

If Frist's acknowledgment that Thompson was going to run may have been a slip, Thompson's own words also suggest he's running. He says he understands "how hard it is, how difficult it is, how embarrassing it is, how intrusive it is." And he knows that as a candidate he could be subject to harsh attacks.

"That's the least of it anymore," he says. "It's not pleasant, but it's not that important anymore because you're straight with your family, you have a level of understanding and knowledge about your family, and they with you, and with the man upstairs, and that's that. You know, ain't really much past that. And it kind of frees you up in a way."

Yes, it does.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Quote of the Day from The Examiner, Washington edition

"Don't be fooled by people who come to you now and say they are conservative. I can assure you that Rudy McRomney is not conservative, and he knows he is not conservative."
Former VA Govenor Jim Gilmore addressing Iowa Republicans at their annual Lincoln Day dinner.

Fred Thompson weighs in on Virgina Tech
 

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure. The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

:lifter

In case anyone missed this, Fred Thompson will be appearing on Hannity and Colmes tonight.

It occurs to me that if you look up the word "gravitas", Fred Thompson should be there, or at least his voice should.

It has a resonant quality that reminds me of James Earl Jones.

I'll be watching tonight.

TR

Interview confirms that he is a beast. I mean that in a very good way.

I would love to see that well spoken, honest, gravitas he posseses in a debate with a liberal. They just couldn't get away from the righteousness he purveys.

-Don

In case anyone missed it, or if you're OCONUS, you can watch the interivew from a link at http://www.foxnews.com/ It's their top video right now, front page to the right under Fox News.

I think he's taking a very calculated approach to running for POTUS. I liked what I heard...and truly hope he runs.

Found it interesting that Dick Morris, on after the interview, was talking about Republicans that want a "Rocky Balboa"; someone with fire in their belly...and how Fred Thompson is admittedly "laid back". Hmm...no, I don't want "Rocky".

Me neither.

I want the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I liked what I saw.

TR

Solid conservative principles? Check

Intellectual horsepower? Check

Effective communicator? Check

Star potential? Check

I definitely like what I've seen so far.