Senator Fred Thompson; next President of the USA

[amicus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson



May as well get your guns loaded...and start the anti Thompson campaign now.

amicus...

 

[3113]

May as well get your guns loaded...and start the anti Thompson campaign now.

We've better things to do around here, Ami. In case you haven't noticed, there's a missing flashing-red-penis-swizzle-stick that need to be replaced

 

[amicus]

amicus searches through his collection of swizzle sticks. "Nope, not here, sorry."

Have a Vienna sausage instead?

ahem..

 

[Huckleman2000]

The country is still not recovered from the last actor to become President.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...Reagan, Arnold and Fred, ah, yes, they do have something in common do they not?

Wonder how one would accurately describe that commonality on the big screen?

a curious ami...

 

[S-Des]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson



May as well get your guns loaded...and start the anti Thompson campaign now.

amicus...

Thompson's a conservative, but he's a tough guy to hate. He's a very accomplished lawyer, was a good Senator who left to do other things, and doesn't seem to be the kind of attacker that Bush, Rove, & Cheney were (although I wouldn't be shocked if that changed) so I doubt there will be much hating of him. Besides, much like Edwards (who doesn't matter enough to hate), he'll fly under most people's radar until something changes. As a conservative (a real one, not like Bush), he will push some people's buttons eventually, but I'd be surprised if he ran the kind of sleazy campaign Bush did. He'd probably make a decent president, but I think Bush has nixed any conservative's chances the next time around.

 

[JamesSD]

Eh, he's better that Giuliani, way better than Mitt Romney.

I don't think he can carry the Religious Right, and Republicans can't win National elections without them. Which is really too bad, secular Republicans are much easier to swallow, as they tend to be of the much less offensive "libertarian" mold.

I don't think he can win the Republican nomination, but a lot can happen between now and then.

 

[amicus]

S-Des...hmmm

Guiliani, McCain, I just don't see anything happening there...and the Hillary/Obama thing...I sense may crash and burn somewhere along the way.

Who knows? But if there is a dark horse wild card in the mix, Thompson just might be it.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The country is still not recovered from the last actor to become President.

Oh come on - I don't know who was a better (or worse) actor, but Thompson played much cooler characters. (No "Bedtime for Bonzo" in his filmography.)

 

[impressive]

We've better things to do around here, Ami. In case you haven't noticed, there's a missing flashing-red-penis-swizzle-stick that need to be replaced

. .

 

[Guest]

We've better things to do around here, Ami. In case you haven't noticed, there's a missing flashing-red-penis-swizzle-stick that need to be replaced

Damn straight!

I'm in withdrawal!

 

[S-Des]

Oh come on - I don't know who was a better (or worse) actor, but Thompson played much cooler characters. (No "Bedtime for Bonzo" in his filmography.)

I loved him in Die Hard 2. It took me forever to believe it was the same guy when I saw him on the Senate floor, making a speech.

Like with any president, it is all about who you surround yourself with. Clinton knee-capped himself with his first two major policy initiatives when he took office (he might have been able to pull them off if he hadn't handled them so badly). Think of it this way...Thompson has more than twice the Senatorial experience Obama has (even though he's been on Law & Order way longer than he was a Senator). Wouldn't that be a fun race?

 

[Guest]

I loved him in Die Hard 2. It took me forever to believe it was the same guy when I saw him on the Senate floor, making a speech.

Like with any president, it is all about who you surround yourself with. Clinton knee-capped himself with his first two major policy initiatives when he took office (he might have been able to pull them off if he hadn't handled them so badly). Think of it this way...Thompson has more than twice the Senatorial experience Obama has (even though he's been on Law & Order way longer than he was a Senator). Wouldn't that be a fun race?

Yes, but I hated him on some of his TV appearances.

On the show Wise Guys he was a leader of a cult called Pilgrims of Promise. He was racist, he was homophobic, he was manipulative and he would talk others into doing his dirty work for him.

On second thought, he might fit quite well with the current presidential administration.

 

[amicus]

Ah...I let that one sit for a while Sweetsubsarah...stewing in its own juices.

The more I think of it...some one said 'that would be quite a race', I think it would too.

I think Fred, up against Hillary..or Obama, would bring home the bacon for eight more years in the White House and maybe take the Senate also...hmmm...I like this scenario...


amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ah...I let that one sit for a while Sweetsubsarah...stewing in its own juices.

The more I think of it...some one said 'that would be quite a race', I think it would too.

I think Fred, up against Hillary..or Obama, would bring home the bacon for eight more years in the White House and maybe take the Senate also...hmmm...I like this scenario...


amicus...

You're so cute, ami.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Starring in Iron Eagle III alone makes him more qualified than the current president.

 

[amicus]

You're so cute, ami.

~~~

Thanks darlin', gotcha thinkin' though, right?

grins...ah just loves it.

amicus...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Starring in Iron Eagle III alone makes him more qualified than the current president.

And the supporting role in Red October.

 

[Pure]

note that ami is conceding that because of bungling and corruption, none of the present conservative office holders has much of a chance against a strong and relatively clean Dem. the signs of conservative desperation are multiplying-- picture ami supporting a pro choice fellow like Fred T.! it's gotta hurt, but to retain power, lots of wild things are coming down the tubes.

---
the story ami reports has been around for a few weeks at least; you can trust that ami will pick up any current talking points of the right wing pundits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-sullivan/candidate-fred-thompson_b_44469.html


'Candidate' Fred Thompson: Ripped from the Headlines?

(17 comments )

READ MORE: Fred Thompson, Hollywood, Kathleen Sullivan, Dick Wolf, John McCain, U.S. Republican Party, U.S. Senate, Mitt Romney, Gallup

From dinner to dinner, conservatives are traveling the country taking straw polls, listening to industrialists, and eating a lot of pork trying to find a suitable candidate. As yet, no one can be found. But Hollywood may be the answer.

Hollywood? Could it be? Could the Hollywood bashers of the last decade be embracing Hollywood?



Dick Wolf's Law & Order gavel is the new favorite sound within the Republican Party. With just an appearance on Fox, Fred Thompson has fired up so much interest that Mitt Romney is looking for a new state to sell carpets.

A newly released Gallup poll shows Thompson third with 12% behind Guiliani (31%) and McCain (22%). Yes, it is remarkable that McCain has regained ground, but the news is Fred Thompson, who has done just a few well-placed interviews. John Fund's "On the Trail" column for the Wall Street Journal has given the bon fides of the actor and why he's the right guy for conservatives. It resonated.

What isn't mentioned in the columns on Thompson: "married three times, pro-choice, gay rights." What you do see are: former co-counsel Senate Watergate investigation, US Senator, assistant US attorney, guided John Roberts' confirmation to Supreme Court." To Republicans, he is Mr. Law & Order.

Since his appearance on Fox's Sunday morning program, he's left all doors open, which has led to March Madness. Thompson's Wikipedia profile is updated daily to include a 2008 Presidential bid. He doesn't have to run around the country, he appears nightly as "Arthur Branch" in reruns. Thompson is filling in this week for Paul Harvey on a national syndicated radio program that reaches 22 million a week. Campaign? Why bother?

This could be the uber strategy. Stay away from Washington, stay away from the media, stay away from the grass roots electorate...for now. Most importantly, stay away from those other declared candidates and any scheduled debates.

There is some irony to the fact that Fred Thompson was elected to his Senate seat when it was vacated by the incoming Vice President Al Gore. Could they meet in 2008? Two men who are getting exposure now thru their appearances in movies and television?

Pundits are chomping at the bit for Thompson to get into the fray. "(Thompson's) in the Hunt for a Red October," "(McCain's) In the Line of Fire," "No Way out (for Guiliani)" all play with Thompson's credits.

Fun fact: Thompson is the author of "What did the President know and when did the President know it?" asked by Sen. Howard Baker at the Watergate hearings. (You just know that everyone will ask him this question if he runs.)

It is stunning to think that the GOP now must go back to the Hollywood trough for a candidate. It happened once: Reagan. But this time....a television actor? Oh, yes, Ronnie was the GE spokesperson. And Thompson actually represented GE as a lobbyist between gigs. Good heavens. But he's a Law and Order candidate, so that's okay.

 

[Seattle Zack]

It's interesting what neocons pin their hopes on, especially as the real political season draws nigh. I mean, they do realize Dalton is a TV actor (his performance in Aces: Iron Eagle III notwithstanding.

Romney busts his ass to get neocon cred and he's largely ignored. Guillani makes 'em nervous because he favors gun control and once suited up in a dress. McCain can't get the evangelical wackos he needs.

Tough times to be a Bush apologist. What's that approval rating, some 22%? Positively Nixonian.

 

[Carnevil9]

FDT is no Newt (my first choice for 2008), but he's not bad. He's certainly more of a conservative that Giuliani. I'd love to see him run against Hitlery. It would be a Republican blow-out......Carney

 

[Huckleman2000]

It's interesting what neocons pin their hopes on, especially as the real political season draws nigh. I mean, they do realize Dalton is a TV actor (his performance in Aces: Iron Eagle III notwithstanding.

Romney busts his ass to get neocon cred and he's largely ignored. Guillani makes 'em nervous because he favors gun control and once suited up in a dress. McCain can't get the evangelical wackos he needs.

Tough times to be a Bush apologist. What's that approval rating, some 22%? Positively Nixonian.

Add Newt to the mix. I think that makes nine wives for the top four Republican front-runners, and the one with just one is the Mormon.
[fair warning - I may be using that joke a LOT in the coming months]

 

[S-Des]

note that ami is conceding that because of bungling and corruption, none of the present conservative office holders has much of a chance against a strong and relatively clean Dem. the signs of conservative desperation are multiplying-- picture ami supporting a pro choice fellow like Fred T.! it's gotta hurt, but to retain power, lots of wild things are coming down the tubes.

Actually, this story isn't true. Thompson is not pro choice or pro gay rights. He's also not against them (which alone makes him a hell of a lot better than Bush ). He's a strict constitutionalist who is pro state's rights. He believes every state should be allowed to set it's own laws on these and other crucial issues. That would mean that right-wing states could wind up with more strict abortion laws and little or no rights for gays. Then again, if it's in the hands of the people and not politicians in Washington, you never know. I think it's an interesting idea, but considering the ballot initiatives of the last election (especially in NY, which is solidly in the Blue column) show that such a position might not help. The problem with the issue is that people lie. They say that everyone should have rights, they complain about unfair treatment of people, but every time they get in the voting booth, they go the other way.

Personally, I don't understand it. I can't believe we're still arguing if same sex couples should have the rights of people who get married more often then they file taxes (but let's leave Newt out of this ). I can't believe we still prosecute ill people who only can find relief with a joint (which is non-addictive), but it's perfectly OK for them to take heavily addictive, mood altering pharmaceutical drugs. The whole thing pisses me off and I don't see either side fixing any of it. I might vote for Thompson if he gets there, or I might vote for Obama (depending on what specific positions he takes between now and then). Then again, I may say fuck it and write in Ross Perot. If we're going to keep having a fucked up White House, let's go for the gusto and put a complete nut-job in there.

 

[Pure]

hi s des

i hope you're right about thompson, for 'leave it to the states' is at least a principled position (it beats me why 'limited government' persons want constitutional amendments --or federal laws--against abortion and gay marriage [or porn]; [answer--there are hardly any 'limited government' republicans in existence any more; certainly not amicus, nor bush, cheney, rove, lott])

here is some info on Thompson. his position is apparently unclear or perhaps 'evolving.' It's the mark of a good politician that both sides of an issue believe you agree with them [said to be true of Barack Obama].

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp

The genesis of the current spat involves my reporting on the surprisingly elusive question of what Thompson's abortion position was in the mid-1990s. Throughout the whole process, I've been driven by a journalistic itch to find the truth.

In my initial post on the matter last Thursday (titled "Flip Flopping Fred?"), I included a block quote of all the news excerpts from the mid-1990s describing Thompson as pro-choice that were pointed out by Evangelicals for Mitt. I concluded the post by writing, "for all the ribbing Romney has taken on his abortion evolution, it's only fair to give other potential candidates the same scrutiny, especially because the Thompson boomlet is based on him being the whole package."

What piqued my curiosity was the fact that none of the news articles cited had a direct quote from Thompson saying he was pro-choice, or that he believed in a woman's right to choose--they just described him as pro-choice, or in one case "basically pro-choice." This wasn't satisfying to me.

I scoured Nexis, and couldn't find a quote of Thompson clearly espousing that he was pro-choice. So, like any good reporter, I decided to make some calls and see what I could find out. I put a call into the National Right to Life Committee to see if they had any insight into his record. The executive co-director Darla St. Martin promptly got back to me and adamantly rejected reports that Thompson was pro-choice in 1994, saying that she interviewed him in person and determined that he opposed abortion and that he had a consistent pro-life voting record. I posted what she told me.

But the story kept evolving, and I later followed up by posting Ramesh Ponnuru's 2000 item describing Thompson's pro-choice background. And Tuesday, I uncovered an excerpt from a 1995 Judiciary Committee hearing that I thought shed some light on the controversy.

This is an evolving story that has been hard to pin down. But I've been reporting on everything I find in a totally transparent manner. I've been perfectly respectful of other views. I've never accused anybody of being a liar, and I certainly never wrote anything anonymously. So, like Michael Corleone before me, I say to Justin: I hope you will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which you have now besmirched it.


Posted By: Philip Klein

===
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE2MGY4NmNjMDQwZjlmMzFiYTBkNWIwNTFiYTNhMGE=

Fred Thompson on Abortion [Ramesh Ponnuru]


There has been some discussion of when he became a pro-lifer (notably by Evangelicals for Mitt, a site that seems to imply, I think wrongly, that being pro-life was the default position of Republicans in Tennessee during the 1980s and 1990s). I wrote about the issue in 2000. He seems to have had a change of heart some time after 1997.

/06/00 6:20 p.m.
Thompson's Turn
Senator Thompson's office disputes NR.

By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR senior editor


The latest issue of NR includes a rundown of possible Bush running mates. In passing, it mentions that Senator Fred Thompson, the Tennessee Republican, has the drawback of being pro-choice. His office called today to say that Thompson is actually pro-life.

Thompson has certainly voted with pro-lifers almost all the time. The National Right to Life Committee counts votes for John McCain-style campaign-finance reform, which Thompson supports, as anti-pro-life votes, but otherwise he's been solid. The senator voted against the Harkin amendment, which put the Senate on record favoring Roe v. Wade. But when Thompson ran for Senate in 1994, he did so as a supporter of legal abortion, as several press clips from the time pointed out. NR has also obtained a copy of a letter Thompson sent to a constituent in 1997, which notes that Thompson supports various restrictions on abortion but also includes the line, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

The upshot: Thompson is an ally of pro-lifers in all the actual fights that come up, but he's not one of them on the core issue. Unless, that is, he has changed his mind, as suggested by his current self-description as a pro-lifer. In that case, NR would be more than happy to print a correction — and welcome him aboard.

====
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/the_case_against_fred_thompson.html

And when he ran for the Senate in 1994, Thompson was routinely described as a supporter of abortion rights. A 1994 story in the Memphis Commercial Appeal described Thompson and his Democratic opponent as "basically pro-choice on abortion," and an Associated Press piece from that same year called Thompson a "pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt."

But in an interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace, Thompson described himself as "pro-life" and called Roe v. Wade "bad law and bad medical science." At some point, Thompson will be forced to explain the seeming contradiction/evolution in his position. (American Spectator is already on the case.)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Hmmm... I actually find Fred Thompson's politics acceptable, especially when compared to the current Imperialist administration. Unfortunately, rather than a real candidate, I see Thompson more as an attempt on the part of the Republican party to find ANYONE not connected to or publicly supportive of the Bush Administration. I hope he gets the Republican Nomination. That will ensure and Democrat in the White House for the next eight years.