Fred Thompson, President?

[incommin]

I like the Fred and Condi ticket. I think they would attract a lot of the independent crowd which either side needs to win.

I don't think McCain or Giiuliani will accept a VP slot.... egos.... and don't think they would win 1st place. Nor will any of the others who say they are in the race.......

Jim

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I like Newt, but he is unelectable, and could hurt a ticket as a VP candidate.

McCain is too old and too powerful in the Senate to take a VP position, and Giuliani is too liberal to have in either position and get my vote. I would not want to set him up as Veep for a POTUS run in 2012 or 2016.

TR

I would vote for Giuliani over Clinton or Obama but would certainly not vote for him in a primary over a Newt or Thompson. I am still watching Romney. He has alot of upside and he has charisma and a track record that looks good.

For the record I could care less about a persons religious beliefs. Unless of course they were Muslim......then I would draw a line.

[The Reaper]

Romney signed anti-Second Amendment legislation in Mass, and waited till last year to join the NRA.

Now he has some lame story about being a lifetime hunter.

Let's just say I believe in redemption, but not so much in last minute conversions.

It occurs to me that he, like Hillary and Obama, believes strongly in whatever it takes to win at the moment.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Romney signed anti-Second Amendment legislation in Mass, and waited till last year to join the NRA.

Now he has some lame story about being a lifetime hunter.

Let's just say I believe in redemption, but not so much in last minute conversions.

It occurs to me that he, like Hillary and Obama, believes strongly in whatever it takes to win at the moment.

TR

Ironically though if Hillary puts on a hunters outfit and shoots a turkey this coming November she'll lose 100% of her support for POTUS.

I'm only interested in candidates that have openly, past and present, opposed gun control legislation. Anything else is purely a lie or pandering to the momentary cause for voter support.

Fred D. Thompson has that track record. Interestingly F. D. Thompson did not show a "TIGER" approach to his interview with Sean Hannity on Fox news two nights ago. I agree with Dick Morris, he needs to come out biting and growling like a wild cat to give the republicans what they have been salavating for this time around for POTUS.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Romney signed anti-Second Amendment legislation in Mass, and waited till last year to join the NRA.

Now he has some lame story about being a lifetime hunter.

Let's just say I believe in redemption, but not so much in last minute conversions.

It occurs to me that he, like Hillary and Obama, believes strongly in whatever it takes to win at the moment.

TR

I grew up south of the PRMA (People's Republic of Massachusetts) and was stationed there for a bit. I am sorry but I can NOT see anything of political good coming out of a state with a revolving door prison system, same-sex marraige, Draconian gun-control, high crime and Ted Kennedy...


It's also nice to see that Obaaaamaaa (I believe that is the sheeple pronunciation) gets his S.S. detail now...(thank you taxpayer$)

[Rogue]

AMEN

[Gypsy]

Seems like he's touching on several subjects here, perhaps a hint of a platform to come?


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...05/2007&page=1

Excerpt: Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner
By Fred Thompson
Saturday, May 5, 2007



So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.

A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste, duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it, while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs. The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have enough young working people to finance these programs from their taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt. Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said, "People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come."

It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies; that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for future generations. You always have."

When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you will have your bipartisanship.

[Sweetbriar]

Thompson video interview on Brietbart TV.

Not much new to it, the interviewer throws nothing but soft pitches. I like Thompson very much, but it wouldn't hurt him to be interviewed by someone who at least doesn't like him so much. I'm sure that will come, tho.

Edit: Thompson's Lincoln Club speech quoted above is listed as being on CSPAN's Road to the White House program tonight.

[Shar]

From MSNBC
*** About to Throw His Hat into the Ring? Perhaps the most interesting release we received last night on the immigration bill was from Fred Thompson’s office. Said the candidate-in-waiting: “We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.” The simple act of sending the release signals a likelihood that Thompson is already acting like a candidate. There are now all sorts of organizational rumors floating around (from an exploratory announcement being imminent to key hires coming on board). The Thompson-for-president campaign is no longer months away -- instead think weeks, maybe days…



Coming from someone who has been very involved in the Romney machine (and feeling extreme Romney fatigue), I think he's brilliant to have stayed out of it as long as he has - he'll look like an absolutely perfect alternative to the current field when he finally comes in. I'm beyond ready for someone who says what they mean and means what they say. I'll max out for Thompson.

I should add this link too - Thompson "hearing" us:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/fred...sive_story.php

[The Reaper]

More on Fred.

TR

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110010089

PEGGY NOONAN

The Man Who Wasn't There
Fred Thompson isn't yet running, but he's running a great campaign.

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it's clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn't there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear--boxers, briefs and temple garments.

He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign. It's a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn't homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn't it bad that colleges don't teach military history? How about that Sarkozy--good news, isn't it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they're not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That's an unusual sound.

Most illustrative was what started this week as a small trading of barbs with provocateur Michael Moore, whose general and iconic dishabille is meant to show identification with the workingman, though in America workingmen bathe. Mr. Moore was back from Cuba, where he made a documentary on the superiority of Castro's health care system. Mr. Thompson suggested Mr. Moore is just another lefty who loves dictators. Mr. Moore challenged Mr. Thompson to a health-care debate and accused him of smoking embargoed cigars. Within hours Mr. Thompson and his supposedly nonexistent staff had produced a spirited video response that flew through YouTube and the conservative blogosphere. Sitting at a desk and puffing on a fat cigar, Mr. Thompson announces to Mr. Moore he can't fit him into his schedule. Then: "The next time you're down in Cuba . . . you might ask them about another documentary maker. His name was Nicolás Guillén. He did something Castro didn't like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about."

You couldn't quite tell if Mr. Thompson was telling Mr. Moore he ought to think more about Cuba, or might himself benefit from psychiatric treatment. It seemed almost . . . deliberately unclear.

Right now Mr. Thompson has the best of both worlds, an air of fearlessness and nothing on the line. He hasn't committed. He's not in. He can take a chance and be himself because he's not afraid, and he's not afraid because he has nothing to lose.

He says he'll get in if enough people ask him to. If they don't, he'll go someplace else and do something else. It's not as if his speech fees would go down.

Why would he run now? Because he thinks there's no one of greater stature on the field. Because he thinks he's got a better, shrewder read of the base than the rest of them. Because he's at an age where you throw the dice or know you never will. Because he thinks the one essential to modern presidential leadership, the one thing you must have now, in the age of terror, is the ability to communicate, and he reads himself as the best communicator. And because he's at a point in his private life where it's possible for him. He's got a wife who's got his back and two kids who've given him a second chance. Even in great careers it's the private life that's hardest to get right. He feels he has.

People speak of Mr. Thompson's movie-star looks. But he's not beautiful, he's heavy and gray. What he has is bearing. He has the manner of someone who thinks a great deal of himself, and thinks it after long personal pondering of his good points, bad points, high points and low. He may or may not be correct in his conclusions, but I suspect they are part of his draw. I suspect people pick them up.

Is he anything beyond a standard Republican conservative? Will he have anything beyond a Mideast policy that consists of win in Iraq, support the surge, and oppose any timetable? Does he stand for any strategic thinking apart from what John McCain unconsciously but aptly characterized as "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran"? On domestic issues, can Mr. Thompson go beyond standard conservative thought? I happen to be standard conservative myself, but sometimes old things need to be made new, the obvious needs to be made fresh.

Here are some things Mr. Thompson has going for him. He had eight years in the U.S. Senate, and then left in 2002 instead of sticking around and getting all the muck on him. He has a conservative record but a moderate persona. He seems nonradical, non-let's-follow-the-banner-over-the-cliff. He's a Southerner but modern. He has a great voice. (Voices matter. Ask Obama, who has one. Ask Hillary, who doesn't.) He comes to a field that may soon start to feel tired. That to some extent already does. His relatively late entry suggests--suggests--his motives are serious, not just ego-related.

But Mr. Thompson's challenges are real, too. He'll have to show he's serious--that he's in it for big reasons and in it to the end. He'll have to knock down the "low energy, gadfly, hops from thing to thing" charge, which has persisted so long that one assumes there's something in it. He'll have to show he's not just a rote, pro forma conservative--a dumb conservative--but someone who knows times change, horizons shift. He has to show he has run something, or can run something. Romney ran a state, Giuliani a city. Mr. Thompson has run what--a career? Big whoop.

Most importantly for him, and for all the Republican candidates for that matter, Mr. Thompson will have to answer this question: What is he running to do? Why should the Republicans get another eight years, or four years, after all the missteps they've made? Isn't conservatism, or Republicanism, or whatever you call it, just tired? Isn't it over? Isn't America just waiting for whatever will take its place?
Why shouldn't liberalism get a shot? Could they mess up more? Why should we trust Republicans with foreign affairs?

If Fred Thompson can answer these questions, he'll be showing he's something new, and not just the newest candidate, or the latest face.

Reports this week said an announcement could come in June.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

[Gypsy]

Wish he'd declare his intent soon!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/.../fred_thompson

Thompson courted to seek GOP nomination
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 23, 6:03 PM ET



WASHINGTON - There was a time when Fred Thompson suggested that he couldn't see himself running for office again.

"For me, the George Washington example of serving eight years and riding out of town on a horse and never returning has great appeal," the Tennessee Republican said in 2002, the twilight of his Senate career.

Now, five years later, he is a well-known TV actor who finds himself on the verge of a real-life presidential bid, seemingly recruited by activists hungry for someone to fill what they call a conservative void among the top-tier GOP hopefuls.

Numerous signs point to a Thompson candidacy, and a summertime announcement is widely expected, although people close to him caution that he has not made a final decision about running.

Thompson is hiring staff, speaking to conservative groups, writing online columns on topics of the day and staking out positions on issues like the Senate immigration overhaul. He also is testing his pitch on the Internet.

"It's important to the future of this country that (Republicans) have somebody that can win in November," Thompson said in a recent online interview. "People are looking for somebody who can talk straight to them. That's what I hope I bring to bear."

His expected entrance into the already crowded GOP field could dramatically shake up the race, but it's unclear who among the strongest contenders — Rudy Giuliani, John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Mitt Romney — would be affected the most.

Already, Thompson is competitive with them in national popularity polls. That's likely due in part to his acting role as district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's popular drama "Law & Order."

Conservatives who make up a big part of the GOP base have found fault with Giuliani, McCain and Romney for varying reasons and for months now have been searching for a candidate to embrace.

Thompson's backers bill him as the perfect person — the one truly conservative candidate in the mold of Ronald Reagan who can beat the Democratic nominee in November 2008. Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record) of Tennessee called Thompson "naturally conservative with a down-home sense of humor and a confidence about who he is."

In the Senate, Thompson was considered a reliably conservative vote. The American Conservative Union gave him a lifetime rating of 86 out of 100. He fiercely backed the Iraq war, worked to limit the federal government's role, supported banning a late-term abortion procedure, and voted for President Bush's tax cuts.

But he sometimes took paths that didn't necessarily sit well with conservatives, including advocating for campaign finance reform. He also was one of four senators who backed underdog McCain in 2000 over George W. Bush, the establishment candidate. Social issues, important to the party's right-flank, also typically weren't at the top of his agenda.

He was known less as an ideological legislator and more as an investigator, leading the committee that examined President Clinton's fundraising tactics that included Lincoln bedroom sleepovers by Democratic donors.

"There are plenty of people standing on the sidelines waiting for Thompson to get in the race, and if he doesn't, they're going to stay on the sidelines," said Greg Carson, the GOP chairman in New Hampshire's Rockingham County.

Added Robin Malmberg, his counterpart in Henry County, Iowa: "Personally, I'm still waiting for the one that just tells it like it is. So my curiosity is piqued with Thompson."

The Thompson presidential talk started early this year with a Tennessee-based draft effort. His initial flirtation with the idea quickly became a calculated march. First, he announced he is in remission from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Then, he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and spoke to conservative organizations. Now, he's building a campaign organization, tapping former Reagan and Bush aides for senior posts.

Late to the game by months, Thompson faces several challenges, not the least of which would be turning strong buzz on the Internet and some support in Washington into actual votes in GOP primary contests.

"Fred has the most spontaneous support than anyone in the last 40 years," said an undeterred Sen. Lamar Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn.

Perhaps.

But he still lags the declared candidates in fundraising by multimillions and he also will have to counter the perception that he doesn't have the passion to run for president. His backers dispute that notion and say money won't be a problem given his Hollywood ties and Tennessee network. One official said Thompson will begin fundraising in the first week of June and has an aggressive plan to build a campaign account.

Thompson also trails in building campaign organizations and courting grass-roots supporters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary voting states.

Thus, he's indicated a nontraditional campaign would be likely. Already, much of his activity has been on the Internet, an indication of the direction he may be headed.

Last week, he went online to put the smack down on lefty Michael Moore after the two sparred over the producer's movie "Sicko," which depicts Sept. 11 survivors seeking medical care in Cuba.

In an Internet video, Thompson puffed on a cigar as he sat in a leather desk chair and reminded Moore that the Cuban government once put a documentary filmmaker in a mental institution.

"Mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about," Thompson says — in what could be called the first ad of his would-be campaign.

[CoLawman]

I know someone very dear to my heart that is also very involved in the Romney campaign. She too, is beginning to look at Thompson. Just pointing out that perhaps more than a couple are looking to jump ship as soon as Thompson announces.

[HOLLiS]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I know someone very dear to my heart that is also very involved in the Romney campaign. She too, is beginning to look at Thompson. Just pointing out that perhaps more than a couple are looking to jump ship as soon as Thompson announces.

It seems the field of choice is getting very narrowed. Senator Thompson is just looking better all the time.

[Shar]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I know someone very dear to my heart that is also very involved in the Romney campaign. She too, is beginning to look at Thompson. Just pointing out that perhaps more than a couple are looking to jump ship as soon as Thompson announces.

I still like Romney - especially in comparison to Guillani and the reality of McCain - and I believe in his basic moral compass and ability to lead. However, I realize his major shortcomings insofar as foreign experience and the military. There are of course other areas that aren't perfect, but I still think he's the best thing in the Republican field right now... but it won't be enough to beat the Dems since he's got real name recognition issues, among other things.

What I really like is a Thompson/Romney ticket. I think that has legs. If Condi won't run - which she won't - I like that one. But Thompson really needs to get serious about forming his exploratory committee or else the buzz is going to get bitter.

[JGarcia]

Perhaps Fred is executing a premeditated strategy?

As long as he doesn't declare his candidacy, the Dimocrats spin machine spends it's dollars fighting the declared candidates. He can avoid a certain amount of mud slinging, meanwhile he keeps his little fire burning in our minds with a comment or a speech here and there. People are awaiting his declaration in earnest, someone once said; "absence makes the heart grow fonder." Perhaps it's true in this instance as well. You'd look foolish to oppose a guy who isn't even in the race.

A buddy of mine, whose central issue is gun rights, tole me that McCain is a gun grabber, is this true?