This site is no longer active.

The Front Page/HOME Gun Pics/GGPs The Weekend Women Lists Essays Geopoliticus

Friday, March 23, 2007


Bottom of Comments

My Guy

March 23, 2007
12:57 PM CST

Here’s the man who’s going to get my vote in the primaries. From Patriot Post:

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.

The only strike against Fred is his lack of executive (ie. governorship) credentials—but those credentials are also missing from any potential Democrat opposition.

I’ve always liked Fred, and I’m going to vote for him, if he runs. I hope he does.

He might prove to be our Ronald Reagan Candidate.




Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

  1. I have a feeling he might be the “sleeper” of the race. By that I refer to the one that no-one expected to even be in the running, who rockets past the rest of the crowd when the selected time appears. I agree. I’ll vote for him, for darn sure. Or will we have to write him in, if he doesn’t win the primary?

    Author ID: 6430 | 3/23/2007 01:07 PM CST | #84539
  2. Could an actor ever become a U.S. President?  I have been reading about Fred Thompson for several weeks and he looks interesting.  I think he has a good record on gun issues and he seems to have reasonable view points on the rest of the stuff.

    Having said that, he has a skill that has been lacking for some time and that is communication.  A politician can have the best ideas in the world but if he or she cannot communicate in the various media the politician is a sitting duck when it comes to dissenters. 

    So, we conservative folks need a good candidate, with the right allegiance to values, who is electable and so far it appears that Fred Thompson might not only be an adequate candidate but he might actually be a great choice for President.

    So let’s see what happens, maybe we will have a guy in the race who I can vote for without holding my nose.

    Author ID: 7907 | 3/23/2007 01:16 PM CST | #84543
  3. The only strike against Fred is his lack of executive (ie. governorship) credentialsbut those credentials are also missing from any potential Democrat opposition.

    Sorry Kim,but Richardson is our current Gov,just pointin’ that out.

    I’d vote for Fred if he ran & I hope he does.

    Author ID: 8481 | 3/23/2007 01:18 PM CST | #84544
  4. If he runs, I will vote for him. If not, I might as well vote for the moon. The Red State Republicans will not match the fervor or sheer numbers of sheeple supporting Shrillary/Obama in support of a liberal from New England, be it New York or Massachussetts. And no Conservative worthy of the name would vote for the co-author of that blatant assault on the first amendment, McCain-Feingold.

    Author ID: 9681 | 3/23/2007 01:26 PM CST | #84547
  5. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments Kim. Reagan was a breath of fresh air when he was elected President as the first non-professional pol, and I think Fred has an excellent chance of bridging the gaps in the GOP. I would vote for him myself if the US didn’t fail to adhere to its own “no taxation without representation” policy. Legal resident aliens can (and of course must) pay taxes and register for the draft, but get no vote.
    Let’s all hope that a snowball starts rolling for Fred’s nomination.

    Author ID: 9719 | 3/23/2007 01:36 PM CST | #84548
  6. I’ll pack my handful of snow on that snowball.

    Author ID: 186 | 3/23/2007 01:40 PM CST | #84552
  7. Fred Thompson is it… I have been saying it for months, now. 

    He is the only GOP persona who can win.  All of the others will lose BECAUSE… the unimpressed, unexcited, unhappy red state voters will basically stay home. 

    The following is a letter I sent to the panty waist Establishment worshipers over at NRO…

    Mr. Goldberg (granny style size 16 wink ), it is prudent to remember that off hand remarks in unguarded moments often ring the most true.  You dismiss Fred Thompson because you do not see that the current field of candidates is unacceptable to the broad base of the Republican Party… which is no longer in orbit around the cess pool of New York City.

    The bulk of the GOP has moved far to the south, and west, to a region that few people in your business really understand.  A place where Yankee is not a term of great affection, and most often preceded by some sort of epithet (usually a mild blashemy)…

    Some analysis:

    1.  McCain is toast.  He has little or no real following in the Red States.  Most folks either consider him a shameless self-promoter, or just another RINO.  He is also too old, his recent public appearances, if anyone can get him to show up to a conservative get together, seem to be marred by his rapidly aged appearance, and odd sort of sleepy speech pattern.  McCain was a fave of the media while he looked like he might be the best bet to torpedo George Bush.  The bloom is off that rose, and there is no presidential future for Senator McMedia.

    2. Mitt Romney is three things:  A damnYankee, a phony poseur who says whatever it takes to impress, and a Yankee Establishment Republican… the same type who wet their pants and whimper whenever a Democrat so much as snears.  He is a nothingburger in a very expensive suit.  The Mormon victim thing is a stunt.  Heck, it might even be the only thing that gets him votes around Prince William County (large LDS Stakes here).

    3. Rudy Guiliani.  Give me a break.  He is ANTI-GUN (now with Bloomcrud suing Virginia and other southern gun dealers hung around his neck).  He is pro-Abortion (the mitigation scheme is not working doods.... no one that I know believes a whiff of it).  He certainly isn’t really a border control advocate (another nuanced postion that will haunt him).  Add to that, the reality that New Yorkers HATED HIM to his maritally unfaithful core.  Before 9/11 he was under attack from more angles than a nebbish at a dodgeball tournement.  That absolutely will come back.  Rudy needed to run against Hillary for Senate and finish her once and for all by beating her.  Though he is the best of the current field, that is more akin to being the least offensive looking plop of Hudson River muck. 

    4. Newtie… Another break please… Gingrich is just the Yankee Establishment Official Red State Strawman.  Newt has a Kick-Me HARD! sign tattooed just above his backside, and the Establishment will happily use him as a foil to make their favored candidates look more “reasonable”.  Gingrich’s negatives are hovering right around a Sweet Sixteen half-time score. 

    The asterisks… Brownback blew it with the War vote, though he didn’t have a chance for much more than a look for VP.  Tancredo is a err well… let us say that Tancredo is unique… and leave it at that.  Hukabee sounds like a Hanna Barbara Cartoon Character… All have one big thing in common… (they are all little… *-others")

    So, Conservatives are hoping and pushing for Fred Thompson because the field of nags, and scruffy sorrells is enough to send a horse lover to the car show.

    The Draft Fred Thompson movement is a loud emphatic shout of, “DO OVER!!!!”

    But y’all are er um ... Yankees (see I was nice… sorta) and wouldn’t see that.

    Regards,

    John W. Schneider, III
    Bristow, VA

    Author ID: 8618 | 3/23/2007 01:44 PM CST | #84555
  8. Here’s my analysis of (and fervent hope for) the situation:

    Fred will run.  He is currently hanging back for a few reasons.

    1) He can quickly catch up (within a month) to where Guiliani, McCain, and Romney will be in six months.

    2) While he is only a specter the Dems, particularly Rodham-Clinton and Obama, will continue to bruise each other.  In fact, the longer they are concentrating on each other, the nastier it will get.

    3) Once he enters, the Dems will focus all of their attention Fred.  He is the one, true threat to them.  Until that happens, Fred will be working on tying up any loose ends in his biography and quietly gathering support of other pols.

    I believe and hope that Fred will run.  He will certainly pick up a most of the disaffected conservative votes and he has the charisma and charm to draw the “independent” voters to him.

    Author ID: 8639 | 3/23/2007 02:04 PM CST | #84561
  9. The fact that the “establishment” republicans at places like NRO (a) can’t understand why their triumvirate of lefty career politicians has failed to inspire the base and who (b) dismiss Thompson as a lightweight, give me serious doubt about the future of the Republican party.  To say that the establishment republicans in NY and DC are tone deaf would be a gross understatement.  They’re also tone-blind and tone-stupid. 

    Chalk me up as another Thompson supporter.  Minor pedantic correction to the Patriot Post:  Thompson was in Hunt for Red October, not Clear and Present Danger.

    Author ID: 7544 | 3/23/2007 02:07 PM CST | #84562
  10. I like your assessment of the current field,, Fahvaag.

    Fred easily towers over those guys from pretty much every important perspective.

    McCain, Guiliani and Romney may be well received by the Marxists on the Today Show and in the NBC, ABC and CBS green rooms, but certainly not by blue state America.

    McCain is an admirable war hero, but he has evolved into an unpredictable “Maverick” on whom we can rely for pretty much nothing of any consequence to we freedom lovers.

    Guiliani and Romney are flaming metrosexuals who are at home in $2,500 suits, but who have never been to a car race or watched the sun come up from a treestand.

    Fred, on the other hand, is our man.

    He is for today what he was for 10 years ago.

    He is forceful and I anticipate will be a skilled debater.

    Except for voting for McCain Feingold, he has been consistently conservative on almost every issue.

    I sure hope that he gets in the race.

    Author ID: 7253 | 3/23/2007 02:12 PM CST | #84563
  11. Lots more info here:

    http://draftfredthompson.com

    Author ID: 5891 | 3/23/2007 02:12 PM CST | #84564
  12. I’m another who thinks Thompson would be great. I’ve thought so since his HfRO days, “This is going to get ugly, and people will get hurt!”

    That said, we need to remember some things: he and McClown are good friends, and his weaknesses appear to stem from that relationship. He helped push McCain-Feingold, he’s been McCain’s campaign manager. Neither of those is a death-touch, but the Mc-F snafu is enough to make me think.

    That said, I’ll vote for Fred in both the primaries and the general. I’m convinced he’ll win the nomination, and it’ll be a walk-away in the general.

    Author ID: 6138 | 3/23/2007 02:20 PM CST | #84567
  13. If they can even get on the primary ballot, I’ll vote for either Fred Thompson or Ron Paul.  NY has some real screwball rules about who gets on the ballot in the primaries, and the generals-Badnarik had to sue to get on there in 04.

    Author ID: 9761 | 3/23/2007 02:27 PM CST | #84568
  14. Did you see what else came in from the PatriotPost?

    I’d buy a shirt with that image (Memo to the Republican Party) on it.

    Author ID: 2187 | 3/23/2007 02:33 PM CST | #84571
  15. Thompson has the gravitas of Reagan.  That matters in a leader.  You want someone that Vladimir Putin will go home from meeting, thinking, “I’d better not push him.” Remember how the Iranians let our people go the minute Reagan took office?  That kind of presence is what we need.

    That said, I’m generally predisposed against lawyers because we have too many of them in government, but in Thompson’s case he’s not some establishment or plaintiff’s bar type who would give the vultures’ lobby whatever they want.  So he knows law, and can think like a lawyer when he needs to.  That’s a good thing.

    I am a little concerned that his pet cause while he was in the Senate—campaign-finance reform—went nowhere under his leadership.  Seems like he headed up some committee that accomplished nothing, and then McCain-Feingold rolled right over everybody.  Maybe it was just more proof that committees never really solve problems.  In any event, presidents don’t make legislation; they inspire it, sign it, or veto it.  Whoever wins will need some Tom DeLays to get things done for them, as Reagan never had.

    Yes, I guess I’m talking myself into supporting Thompson.

    Author ID: 9576 | 3/23/2007 02:34 PM CST | #84572
  16. Hmm. First candidate in a long time I think I could actually support, as opposed to holding my nose for in the voting booth.

    Some relevent links so far:
    Wiki entry

    On The Issues
    -concise rundown, with opportunity for comparison to others

    DraftFredThompson website
    -mostly forum, includes a link to petition. (I am #9715)
    Forum includes an opportunity to post questions for FDT, with the caveat that “draftfredthompson.com is not officially connected to Senator Thompson, and therefore we cannot guarantee that he will see or answer these questions. However, it is important for him to know what’s on your mind, especially if you’re on the fence.”

    Thanks again to Kim for bringing this candidate to our attention.

    Author ID: 6976 | 3/23/2007 02:36 PM CST | #84573
  17. And, howzabout a Thompson-Tancredo ticket? Hmmm.

    Author ID: 6430 | 3/23/2007 02:46 PM CST | #84575
  18. Oh, and I’m 9722 on the petition.

    Author ID: 6430 | 3/23/2007 02:50 PM CST | #84576
  19. cmblake…

    That would be like tying a live bomb to your newly launched luxury yacht…

    Give up Tancredo.  He is ... well let me be sort of kind… operating from a nativist mentality that makes me deeply suspicious of his private motives… there that was sort of nice… without calling names. 

    We need to solve the immigration problem, control the borders, and figure out how to get the massive money and influence of big business (that is pushing harder and harder for amnesty).  Frankly, that is why Thompson got involved in campaign finance reform in the first place.  Of cousrse being loyal to a friend can have its negative effects… from what I remember the CFR that Thompson was pushing was not dismissive of the 1st Amendment, and contained lots of sunshine and information without the odious bans.  Of course the weak position in the Senate and close majority in the House made for a terrible bill that frankly should have been sent back by the President.

    Tancredo is a bomb thrower and not a serious candidate for anything of reasonable responsibility (IMHO of course).

    With Thompson at the top of the ticket, there are a host of potentially great VP candidates.  Some might be in the current crop of oatmeal… or NOT.

    We shall see.  I live here… I see lots of Tancredos come and go… they always leave a mess and are never what they say they are… trust me.

    r/TMF

    Author ID: 8618 | 3/23/2007 02:57 PM CST | #84579
  20. Unfortunately, his other big drawback was voting for the thoroughly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, the most blatant undermining of the First Amendment and American political liberties ever dared. And he did it, apparently, mostly out of personal friendship with John McCain.

    I like Thompson, and he’d be a formidable candidate.

    But he’s going to have to answer for that vote, and repudiate it, before I’d throw any support his way. Otherwsie I’d always be wondering what amendment in the Bill of Rights he wanted to gut next.

    Caveat elector.

    Author ID: 9097 | 3/23/2007 02:58 PM CST | #84580
  21. Fred Thompson, eh?

    We does have that “whiff of fresh air” about him.

    He also comes w/ the usual conservative baggage, which isn’t a plus to me, but does not appear to be overly burdened with it.

    In my view, which is informed by rubbing elbows w/ the blue team on a daily basis, if the conservative movement can come to some sort of practical neutrality on issues percieved to be religiously ideological rather than inherently political such as gays and abortion, we’d be able to plow under the weeds of the neosocialists once and for all.

    While we absolutely trust the blue team to increase the scope, size and intrusiveness of government, the blue team gets really shakey when it comes to trusting us not to legislate items of religiously induced ideology.  This leaves us fundamentally vulnerable, that vulnerability is greatly amplified by our enemies and their water carriers, the press, and it actively keeps people away.

    It is a huge barrier to entry, and it’s harming us all.

    Author ID: 188 | 3/23/2007 03:00 PM CST | #84582
  22. Count me in! Fred Dalton Thompson is MY candidate for 2008!

    Author ID: 8424 | 3/23/2007 03:01 PM CST | #84583
  23. DraftFredThompson.com

    Author ID: 9710 | 3/23/2007 03:16 PM CST | #84587
  24. I would definitely vote for Fred!

    Author ID: 9091 | 3/23/2007 03:40 PM CST | #84588
  25. Aesop… You will forever be disappointed.  Until Conservatives quit pulling laundry lists of absolutes out and demanding 100% check offs on all pet issues… we will continue to lose to the Democrats.  Period… there is no other way… no third way… no anything.

    If today’s vote in the House does not sober up some folks, we are likely in for a dangerous mess in the next five years.  Seriously dangerous.

    Politics is not clean.  It is not pure and cannot be run pure.  That is why the founders made the government so difficult to control… they were petrified of “unified” action on anything. 

    CFR is a bugbear that needs to be put in perspective.  Stuff gets done in the Senate (and House) because Congresscritter A and Senator B come up with a core idea and float it in their respective bodies… Votes are horse traded, weedled, cajolled, and frankly blackmailed… Very often a Bill starts off as a simple Campaign sunshine bill with reporting requirements, and more reasonable money limits for direct contributions, but by the time the bill hits the floor it has been amended, morphed, and changed by hundreds of hands, agendas, and needs.

    The end result is often much less than would be hoped. (that is being very optimistic on some big ticket bills - those can turn out to be disasters.)

    CFR was a good thing… the Bill that was passed was not.  Many GOP members voted for it because they had made honorable promises at the beginning of the process to vote for a CFR bill.  That is the way it works… It is also why it is so difficult to run for President from the Senate, or any legislative body, frankly… the House hasn’t done too well in the President world either.

    CFR is done and past.  Let it die… maybe one day a conservative Congress will repeal the odious measures within the mess.

    r/TMF

    Author ID: 8618 | 3/23/2007 04:10 PM CST | #84589
  26. 1) He’s a lawyer. Do we really need any more lawyers in public office?

    2) Buddies with McCain.

    3) Supported the Incumbancy Protection Act

    4) Is willing to use me and my kind as a ”those people” in order to curry favor with the conservative socialists, aka “social conservatives” who want the guvmint out of their lives, but who jump up on a chair, hike up their skirts and scream for laws and amendments to protect them from the big bad nasty homos.

    But when it all comes out in the wash, he is, so far, the most viable candidate the GOP has to offer.  If he remains good on proper judges, great.  If he is an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment, then at least I retain the right to own what may save my life when up against some of the more effervescent of his conservative socialist base.  Will I vote for him? Yes.

    Author ID: 7729 | 3/23/2007 04:29 PM CST | #84592
  27. All i want is another president like Reagan.

    Author ID: 8945 | 3/23/2007 05:18 PM CST | #84594
  28. Aesop You will forever be disappointed.  Until Conservatives quit pulling laundry lists of absolutes out and demanding 100% check offs on all pet issues we will continue to lose to the Democrats.  Period there is no other way no third way no anything.

    Well, pardon me for considering the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to be a “pet issue.” I’m peculiarly devoted to that particular issue, especially in regard to entrusting it to people to uphold on my behalf. Silly me.

    Apparently the thing to do is just put such things out there on the bargaining table with everything else. Like one’s wife and children, perhaps?

    One might ponder the salutary lesson of the following limerick:

    A smiling young lady from Niger,
    Took a ride on the back of a tiger.
    They came back from the ride
    With the lady inside,
    And the smile on the face of the tiger.

    First call for boarding on Flight 2008…

    Author ID: 9097 | 3/23/2007 05:34 PM CST | #84595
  29. >>CFR is done and past.  Let it die…

    HELL NO.

    With respect to CFR, I’d like to remind people that it was passed as the result of and astroturf sock puppet passion play produced by Sean Treglia and financed by a small cadre of liberal foundations that contributed tens of millions of dollars to that cause.

    No, that’s not conspiracy theory, we’ve got Treglia on tape boasting about it, and a positive lock on the dollar flow.

    Most of congress fell for it, the executive fell for it, the judiciary fell for it, and the Republic suffers for it.

    Meanwhile, Pew, Treglia, and Soros, who made out big, are all laughing their asses off.

    We can put it into perspective, we can pardon politicians or not as we see fit for their parts in it, but we positively CANNOT afford to accept the current situation as a reasonable status quo, and we most definately cannot forget how our entire republic was played and p0wned by a small number of clowns with big bux and big collectivist dreams.

    No, I will NOT let it die.

    Author ID: 188 | 3/23/2007 05:44 PM CST | #84597
  30. Here’s an OpinionJournal interview with Thompson from March 17 where he answers for the campaign finance reform law:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009798

    Author ID: 2489 | 3/23/2007 06:08 PM CST | #84601
  31. Thompson will get my vote if he runs.

    To be fair, though, he is a little wishy-washy on illegal immigration; and the McCain-Feingold vote was a serious restriction of free speech.

    But he is right on the war, abortion, guns, homosexual rights, the budget, big federal government, and welfare; and he has great name and face recognition.  How close to the ultimate conservative do we need a candidate to be?

    Author ID: 9783 | 3/23/2007 06:44 PM CST | #84607
  32. “Remember how the Iranians let our people go the minute Reagan took office?  That kind of presence is what we need.”

    Really?

    Reagan had the highest unemployment rate and the highest interest rates. His “reagonomics” were a joke. He screwed the career military, for life. He screwed the Iranian hostages by having them held until the very minute of his inauguration speech. And paid for their release with weapons.

    Reagan supplied WMD to Saddam to kill Iranians, and supplied arms to Iran (Iran/Contra) to kill Iraqis. Under Reagan, Rumsfeld knew about Saddam’s WMD in 1984 and never said anything until the Gulf War.

    Reagan didn’t have the courage to do anything about the killing of the 240+ U.S. Marines in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut.

    Reagan lied about the Iran/Contra affair, as did his staff who were also involved in it.

    Dubya’s idol is Reagan, and you can see what a mess he has us in.

    Thompson is a joke, and an extreme right-wing religious conservative. Tompson will just give us more of the SOS (same old shite).

    Author ID: 9793 | 3/23/2007 07:01 PM CST | #84608
  33. Reagan inherited the mess created by his predecessor, Jimmah Carter, who was an absolute disaster for the country and military, and it’s thanks to him we’re dealing with the crap in the middle east today.  I mean it’s not like Iran’s current turd-in-charge wasn’t one of the hostage-takers or anything.  rolleyes

    Reagan had an uncooperative Demoncrap Congress, and it’s amazing he got as much done as he did.

    Author ID: 2187 | 3/23/2007 07:25 PM CST | #84609
  34. And the 527s (for which anyone, not just Lefties can take advantage) prove that the bill was bill was a big nothing doesn’t it? 

    Since I haven’t seen anyone arrested, or charged with having something to say about politics, the whole thing fell short of the hyperbole surrounding it.  I rather doubt that in an actual case, that such an action will survive a court challenge… and one day some organization will claim some harm, and challenge the thing again… The FEC is more apt to charge candidates with failure to file thirty-three pounds of paperwork instead of the twenty-eight pounds that they filed.

    What I care about is:

    Winning the war on terror no matter how long it takes, with realistic goals, and firm leadership.  No cutting and running from tough spots.

    No more stupid bans on legal machinery… I want to BAN BANs… (No one is going to go for that, but I know for a fact that any Dem in office is going to sign up for BANNING everything but smoking dope and rampant unresponsible fornication…

    If the Dems are elected in 2008 look for:

    Socialized medical care from being rammed down our throats.
    More terrorist attacks.
    More eviceration of the military.
    More TAXES…
    More politics of Envy run amok.
    More GLOBAL WARMING EMERGENCIES.
    More TAXES…
    GUN CONTROL ... lots of gun control - and they will get around the Constitution on it.
    More terrorism on US soil.
    Piddy little cars with no safety margins and no power…
    More “renewable energy scams”.
    Did I mention higher TAXES?

    You name it the Dems are in full throttle destroy the Conservatives mode… It has gone into overdrive… If Hillary is taking the oath of office in January 2009, I fully expect by that Summer to see all of the above begin in earnest… CFR will be the least of anyone’s worries.  The FBI will be too busy chasing down Right Wing Militia types… and the CIA will be happily sipping sweet mint tea at various troublespots around the world asking the bad guys to tell them what they (the bad guys) are up to…

    SO… do as you will… just don’t ever expect anyone electable to meet your standards.

    r/TMF

    Author ID: 8618 | 3/23/2007 07:28 PM CST | #84610
  35. That is the one potential candidate from any party that I would be willing to vote for.  Even tho he was acting when I first saw him in Hunt for Red October he came across as a sincere person. Nothing I have seen since tells me otherwise.  I sincerely pray he does enter the race.
    Traveler

    Author ID: 8277 | 3/23/2007 07:57 PM CST | #84611
  36. Check yer comments, Kim. I called this months ago. =)

    Author ID: 142 | 3/23/2007 08:44 PM CST | #84612
  37. Since I havent seen anyone arrested, or charged with having something to say about politics, the whole thing fell short of the hyperbole surrounding it.  I rather doubt that in an actual case, that such an action will survive a court challenge.

    Call your office.

    It was taken to the Supreme Court and upheld.

    But I suppose you’re right. The government has the right under McCain-Feingold to engage in draconian suppression of free speech, but they just haven’t exercised it to its full extent.

    That’s so much better than the original “Congress shall make no law” provision.

    I feel freer already. Huzzah.

    Author ID: 9097 | 3/23/2007 10:47 PM CST | #84615
  38. Aesop....

    certain parts of it were taken to the Supremes and certain parts were upheld.  Certain other parts were tossed out… and as my buddy the lawyer says… cases are often never what they seem…

    There is mucho room for challenging the speech limiting portions of the bill.  No one has effectively done that under the right set of conditions on the right grounds.  Context means everything in a court proceeding. 

    You can have a decision be a loss, and still have a ruling within the decision be to your advantage.  That is why it is so dangerous to have a government ruled by the courts. 

    I have lived here since 1974.  My history teacher was a state delegate for years.  My friends and neighbors are lawyers, and government employees… I am a contractor… I get involved in local politics… I see the sausage being made… the local politicians around here are the aides and lobbiests who deal with the big pols downtown. 

    CFR is like nuclear weapons.  No one wants to use it because to do so is to commit suicide.  Although the Dems are more apt to try to use it once they feel like they have secured enough power to maintain the hypocracy.

    Those people who make the sausage, and see it being made every day… are actually rarely disgusted by it.  In fact… they are more apt to be attempting to make it better… with better cuts of meat, and maybe less fat…

    It all comes of a perspective I suppose.  The US government is US… all of us… not separate from us… It reflects who we are, and what we desire.  And sometimes it is pathetically bad.

    Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman… smirk

    Author ID: 8618 | 3/24/2007 04:50 AM CST | #84620
  39. Uh, nynative1340, I’m don’t know what you were doing during the Reagan years, but I was active duty military Intel, and I think you might be a little confused on a few things (IMHO):

    the highest unemployment rate and the highest interest rates. His reagonomics were a joke.

    Both rates were a legacy Mr Peanut.  The parts of “reganomics” as it was dismissively titled by the MSM that were able to get through the Democrat controlled congress are part of what pulled the both rates down.

    He screwed the Iranian hostages by having them held until the very minute of his inauguration speech.

    I’ve never seen any credible evidence of that.  My take is that the release was timed more by the Iranians as a final dig at Carter. 

    And paid for their release with weapons.

    I think you’re confusing this with the Iran/Contra operations, which involved weapons and parts to Iran to get hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian proxies released.  I have never seen any hint that any weapons trade was involved in the release of the Embassy hostages. (Other than the implied threat of the Iranians recieving weapons, or at least their warheads, at terminal velocity)

    Reagan supplied WMD to Saddam to kill Iranians,

    Wrong.  I am somewhat familiar with the aid given to Iraq at the time, and WMD’s was not part of the list.  I believe the Soviet Union had that part of the contract.

    and supplied arms to Iran (Iran/Contra) to kill Iraqis

    Unfortunately true, but then, having the money from the sale, giving it to the Contra’s to help undermine Ortega and the Sandanasty’s was brilliant IMHO.

    Reagan didnt have the courage to do anything about the killing of the 240+ U.S. Marines in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut.

    Sadly, partially true.  There should have been smoking holes in Damascus and Teheran where the Intel HQ’s running Hezbollah stood the next day. However, there was a little thing called the Cold War with the Soviet Union that constrained a lot of our direct action.  I would not call it lack of courage so much as a judgement call, one we are questioning with the benefit of over 20 years of hindsight.

    Reagan lied about the Iran/Contra affair, as did his staff who were also involved in it.

    Actually, there’s no proof Regan ever lied about the affair.  His staff kept him out of the loop so he wouldn’t have to lie (whether through lax management, loose cannons on the staff, or a decision of “what I don’t know I can’t testify about” is still open for debate).  You may not approve of what happen (I have serious problems with the arms for hostages part), but at least criticize him for what he actually did.

    Dubyas idol is Reagan, and you can see what a mess he has us in.

    Dubya is NO Ronald Reagan, and his polices, especially on the domestic front, are not inspired by Reagan’s philosphy.  Would that it were so.

    Thompson is a joke, and an extreme right-wing religious conservative.

    If you think Fred Thompson is an right wing extremist, you need to get out more, seriously.  Maybe compared to the NY Times and MSM he’s “extreme right wing”, but in the real world....  I know some right wingers that scare me, and they’d consider Fred a wishy washy RINO.

    We’l have to agree to disagree on the opnion parts, but I would suggest you get your facts straight before going on a rant, it’ll help your credibility for the parts that are debatable.

    Best regards.

    Author ID: 85 | 3/24/2007 05:35 AM CST | #84624
  40. Thompson is a joke, and an extreme right-wing religious conservative. Tompson will just give us more of the SOS (same old shite).

    That’s funny.  Not to pick on you, but the sentiment you express here; this is what’s wrong with our country today, is that people who feel this way (obviously college educated) get to vote.  You are the poster boy for the brainwashed “modern liberal”.

    Author ID: 9710 | 3/24/2007 06:04 AM CST | #84627
  41. “He screwed the Iranian hostages by having them held until the very minute of his inauguration speech.”

    Nynative1340 -

    Who was commander in chief until Reagan was innaugerated?

    If you think Reagan was so unpopular, check out the electoral map linked to in the Patriotpost reference above.

    You need to go on over to Daily Kos - you will be right at home there.

    Author ID: 7253 | 3/24/2007 06:32 AM CST | #84634
  42. Fred easily towers over those guys from pretty much every important perspective.

    He also towers over them physically. The man is 6’6” tall and is BIG with a commanding voice! Talk about presence! He’ll be a good head and a half over Obama and the other forerunners on the Donk AND Republicrat sides.

    If he makes the Rep nomination, I’m looking forward to the Pres debates with glee - because he’s also good at debate. Imagine, shrill little 5’6” Shrillary debating the likes of Fred Thompson? She’d be put to shame, as he’s a calm-spoken, well-reasoned southern boy and she is wholely defined by the words ‘shrill socialist politician’.

    And thats not even saying anything about Republican primaries. He’d likewise put the northeast ‘tics to shame.

    Author ID: 8152 | 3/24/2007 06:43 AM CST | #84636
  43. Kim, I endorse your endorsement.

    Author ID: 9797 | 3/24/2007 07:11 AM CST | #84639
  44. > He might prove to be our Ronald Reagan Candidate

    My knowledge of him is very limited, but he doesn’t seem to have the same congenial / convivial air about him as did Reagan and Clinton.

    Author ID: 8647 | 3/24/2007 08:02 AM CST | #84644
  45. I like Ron Paul.  He is--of course--a compromise, but I like his position regarding the Constitution.

    Author ID: 7831 | 3/24/2007 09:07 AM CST | #84651
  46. Check yer comments, Kim. I called this months ago. =)

    Months ago, Fred hadn’t announced that he was “considering” a run for President. As such, I wasn’t going to waste my time dreaming. It’s different now.

    0 Author ID: 1 | 3/24/2007 09:28 AM CST | #84653
  47. If NYNative’s hysteria is any guide, Thompson is exactly what we need to make their empty little heads explode. 

    OTOH, They’d love to have McCain, Rudy or whats-his-name-Masshole-gov running because it’d be the best of both worlds.  If he loses (which he would, because conservatives would stay home and start building bomb shelters) then they get Hillary, and even if he wins, they get a Democrat in a Republican suit, so they win either way. 

    But Thompson - he’s got them worried.  As arch-Republican Mr. Burns would say, “Eeeeexcellent!”

    Author ID: 7544 | 3/24/2007 09:54 AM CST | #84655
  48. Fred easily towers over those guys from pretty much every important perspective.

    He also towers over them physically. The man is 66 tall and is BIG with a commanding voice! Talk about presence! Hell be a good head and a half over Obama and the other forerunners on the Donk AND Republicrat sides.

    McCain, Guiliani and Romney are Lilliputians compared to Fred, and the Democrats truly fear him.

    He is clearly our man.

    Author ID: 7253 | 3/24/2007 10:46 AM CST | #84659
  49. If NYNatives hysteria is any guide, Thompson is exactly what we need to make their empty little heads explode.

    Y-e-e-e-e-e-s. How DID I get the impression that this was a liberal seminarist attempting to discredit the greatest POTUS of the 20th century? He had to fix all the bs that Jimmuh left, with a hostile congress to overcome. So the reverence you obvious DNC saboteur. FOAD.

    Author ID: 6430 | 3/24/2007 12:53 PM CST | #84669
  50. Although there is some issues I still have with Fred Thompson....It is beginning to be clear he may be the one to go head to head with the Democrat frontrunners!  since I’m sure they are dreading this as well....I have no doubt, they was hoping MSM would keep the Rino liberal gang in full steam...and in the end, Democrats wins hands down in 2008....Although I have constantly spoke up for Tom Tancredo, he truely seems like a long shot....Fred isn’t perfect, but he seems to unite a lot of Conservatives and he hasn’t even entered the race yet....I hope he knocks the Rino’s off there fake asses and sends them packing in the primarys....and just maybe he will pick a real conservative as vice president.

    Author ID: 6728 | 3/24/2007 02:22 PM CST | #84674
  51. I saw some of what he said and did against the Clintonistas, and I was mightily impressed.

    Two words.  Last word “yes.” First word something vulgar and inspiring.

    Author ID: 9123 | 3/24/2007 06:06 PM CST | #84681
  52. It would be nice to vote FOR someone rather then either against someone or not at all…

    Author ID: 7596 | 3/24/2007 11:15 PM CST | #84684
  53. Fred’ll have a bit harder time getting elected than Reagan did the first time(which is to say he would not have a very hard time of it).  Reagan had a classy sort of quick wit about him that endeared him to loads of voters who probably wouldn’t like what he was actually saying if they thought about it.  I’m thinking of the type of voter who wishes politics were not so “divisive” and prefers that everyone get a long and share in a sort of naive Mr Roberts Neighborhood kindergarden-y sort of way.  Fred Thompson I don’t think will do as well with that type of voter as Reagan did, because the deep “voice of god” and commanding presence thing is going to be agressive to them.  He doesn’t have the kind and fun good hearted grandfather aura to mask the divisive (to blue state socialists) messages of his conservative ideology.

    Author ID: 9534 | 3/25/2007 01:01 PM CST | #84701
  54. While “Hunter & Thompson” plays well with a “Fear and Loathing in the DNC” theme, I could handle a Thopson/Hunter ticket.

    Author ID: 9808 | 3/25/2007 01:15 PM CST | #84703
  55. One more for Fred.

    And Reagan inherited Carter’s inflation and unemployment. That’s two of the reasons that Carter was defeated. The Iranian cluster-fubar was number 1.

    Author ID: 7931 | 3/25/2007 08:49 PM CST | #84707
  56. nynative1340,

    Reagan inherited an economy shrinking faster than it did during the Great Depression, and with 16-17% inflation, 22% interest rates, unemployment nearly 9% and rising almost 0.5% each quarter, and a Cold War about to be lost. The GNP in 1980 was $2.6 trillion, but shrinking by hundreds of billions of dollars each quarter, and the deficit was rising from almost $190 billion when he was inaugurated to over $300 billion before his budget was put through your corrupt party’s House committees. He was able to fire over 175,000 civilian federal employees, a thing no other president in the 20th century even pretended to try to do, and re-negotiated a stupendous number of contracts based on the high inflation rate Carter left us with but that was no longer happening by the summer of 1981. He saved us nearly $100 billion his first year, about 1/6 of the entire budget. Reagan also inherited a CIA that had almost no human intelligence assets at all except a handful of Soviets helping the West. Both Carter and Clinton did all they could to destroy the CIA, and both accomplished their goals.

    By the time Reagan finished his first term, the hyperinflation we suffered was a memory even though all the leftists calling themselves economists and all the leftists calling themselves political scientists had said it was impossible in 1980. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that at the end of a period of central bank credit expansion a depression must always result. Reagan paid dearly for that consequence because your party of vermin spent the entire time he was in office blaming him for your party’s bad actions, though he had no fault in it at all. His lionhearted courage was a miracle the like of which had not been seen in an American president since George Washington. By 1984 the economy was over $4.8 trillion. He also increased the post-WWII growth rate average from 3.1% annually to nearly 4% annually. Interest rates fell to 7% and kept falling as inflation became harder and harder to remember… until the traitor Bill Clinton starting appointing his corrupt Federal Reserve members and raising tax rates.

    In case you, being a leftist twit, are unaware of this simple fact of economics I’ll explain it to you, though like every other Democrat I’m sure you’ll have trouble understanding it and will remove it from your knowledge as it contradicts your religious faith: raising tax rates like Clinton did reduces the return on investment. That makes the demand for money decline, which means inflation must increase. Reducing the rate of return on investment causes investment to decline, reducing the capital available to each worker in the economy. That means their earnings will fall below what they would have been without the tax increase. The 1993-1994 tax increase also caused federal tax revenues to actually decline, because those whose taxes were raised quit taking their earnings in taxable income. The same thing has happened after every single tax increase since at least 1931.

    So far in American history, Bill Clinton is the only American president who has given WMD to non-NATO countries. While some have speculated that LBJ and Nixon looked the other way while Israel developed theirs, only Clinton gave advanced MIRV technology, our most advanced H-bomb plans, advanced missile electronics, high-speed supercomputers, encrypted fiber-optic communications technology, laser technology, and other most secret weapons technology to our enemy Communist China, and he did it for campaign cash. He is without question the worst traitor in the history of the world, and he should pay for his crimes with his wretched life. As for Iraq and their WMD, Israel destroyed their Russian and French provided nuclear reactor in 1981. Since that time, France, Germany, at least one Scandinavian country, Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, and China have sold Iraq the equipment to reconstitute their WMD programs. We sold Iraq not one weapon of any type. We did give them intelligence when necessary to keep the nuts in Iran from being able to defeat them during their war, but that was only wise. After the 1991 Iraq war appears to be the point where Saddam Hussein began backing international terrorism in a big way. But Clinton needed him for distraction from his hundreds of show-stopping scandals, so there was never anything serious done to hold him accountable or to stop him. We did, however, take control of his nuclear R&D;lab from Libya in October 2003. It has been reported that it was less than 1 year from producing a nuclear bomb. You won’t hear that from the Democrat-dominated media because it’s a fact they can’t live with, like the bribery scandals of your party, the obstructions of justice, and other high crimes your party is throat-deep in.

    As for the Beirut bombing, if you did any actual research on the matter you’d know that when Reagan took office he had to rebuild the CIA from the ground up. By 1983 it was not yet completed, but in the next few years after that bombing every single person in Lebanon involved in the attack was killed. You won’t read about that in the major media because they’re still on their jihad to help their pals in the Arab terrorist world, and like you want to try to blame Reagan for Jimmy Carter’s purposely overthrowing the Shah of Iran in favor of the psychotic Khomeini, just like the POS did in Nicaragua, and your party’s traitor scum in State did in Cuba for Castro.

    For all your idiotic and meritless complaints about “Iran/Contra” there was no crime involved, and only your party’s working with Arab terrorists revealed it to the public. Just like your boy Clinton got Iran’s nuclear production started up and also subsidized North Korea’s nuclear weapons production. But facts are so inconvenient for Dems like you, aren’t they?

    Like the fact that starting in late 1994 Bill Clinton ran air cover for al Qaeda in Yugoslavia, and helped al Qaeda make a deal with Iran to run arms from Iran to the Muslim terrorists in Yugoslavia. That was a violation of the law, it violated the UN arms embargo, and it eventually nearly got Russia to nuke the U.S. for the second time during the Clinton crimewave. In one single day, Clinton murdered more civilians in Yugoslavia than in all the wars that he forced his successor to fight. And the civilians Clinton ordered bombed were nowhere near military targets, were European Christians and atheists, and were related to the people Clinton’s Muslim friends were murdering all over the now-former Yugoslavia. Clinton bombed civilian radio stations, television stations, at least one apartment complex heating plant (killing over 1000 people in that single attack), and the main bridge in Belgrade which thousands of civilians who couldn’t imagine that criminal would bomb if they stood upon it. They were murdered, it was another war crime, and your RICO organization of a party is terrified that anyone will learn of those capital crimes.

    While Republicans have been critical of George Bush for some of his actions, which distinguishes them from you fluffer lapdog Democrats, we’re wise enough to know that nearly everything wrong in the world today is a direct consequence of Clinton’s and his party’s treacheries. Everything you have done and promoted is directly against the interests of the United States and against the well being of mankind, and since you concentrate yourselves in the worst cities, it’s likely you’ll pay the most for your wicked ideas when your foreign allies attack us again. And you will utterly deserve it.

    Author ID: 8165 | 3/26/2007 01:18 AM CST | #84710
  57. Bobby Sherman!!!!! Thank you, TMF.  That was the teen idol I was trying to remember.

    0 Author ID: 2 | 3/26/2007 04:16 AM CST | #84713

Bottom of Comments | Original Post


This template page has been viewed 2576702 times.

Total Entries: 7056
Total Comments: 80235
Most Recent Entry: 11/25/2009 12:35 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 11/30/2008 10:56 pm
Total Members: 2681
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 90
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 03/12/2010 01:53 pm
The most visitors ever was 889 on 01/10/2007 02:01 pm




StatCounter



Copyright 2002 - 2010 - theothersideofkim.com. All rights reserved.

E-mails and comments become the property of the site owner to which they are sent.
This site is private property. Limited access is granted by the site owner.
Intentionally circumventing software restrictions is trespassing.

Terms of Service