Skip to comments.TV Star, Former Republican Senator Fred Thompson Mulls '08 Presidential Bid
Posted on 03/08/2007 7:43:28 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
click here to read article
It'll be a long time before I get that sexy.
BLITZER: Now you were a supporter of John McCain during the primaries, and of course immediately after he lost, you went and supported Governor Bush.
Can these two wings of the Republican Party -- the Bush majority, obviously, but the McCain supporters, the independents -- can they get together and forge a coalition that will really be united?
FRED THOMPSON: I don't think there's any question about it. And first of all, John McCain has started that process himself. I mean, he's here in full support of the ticket and really their support comes from a common ground. I think in both cases there's a concern about what's going on in Washington. There's concern about the tenor of politics, there's concern about what's been going on the last several years both substantively and in terms of behavior in the White House and all that, and all that kind of melds together in peoples' minds.
John [McCain] thinks in terms more of legislative solutions such as campaign finance reform, which I think is a good one. . . .
BLITZER: Campaign finance reform -- the signature issue of John McCain. You were one of the few Republicans that joined him. You supported him on that. There are a few more now that are coming aboard. Is there momentum moving toward McCain's position among Republicans?
THOMPSON: I think there's more than there has been. I think it's an idea whose time is in the process of coming. I don't think that our current system can last. But it's going to have to be equalized. Both parties are going to have to conclude that it's in the interest of the American people and that the American people are going to demand it, probably before they'll act. One side can't do it without the other.
It does me as well. It's a pretty sobering when dreaming about the perfect candidate.
South Park is always worth watching. I think it's gotten better overall, but I don't like the evolution of the Cartman character.
I stand corrected. He also had a few whining, spoiled kids that spent a great deal of time trying to undermine him.
Geesh, this sounds like something I posted on another thread today about another guy who wants to president.
I don't support that guy for president yet, but was incensed at some of the comments about him.
If Fred Thompson becomes president, he will be among a list of many from Tennessee. This state has a tendency to produce scoundrels and statesmen, sometimes wrapped up in one package.
Except apparently in 2000, he took the time to have someone tell NR he was pro-life.
I know! I know! I know! Pick me!
Same as 2000; even after GWB had the nomination, Keyes stayed in the race until after the convetion, up into the fall.
Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.
No reason to think it won't be different this time.
No one's trashing Thompson. Thompson's a great guy who'd be a good President IMHO. Exposing Fred's weaknesses is indicative of how shell shocked some of us are by the unrealistic perfection demanded by some of the ninnies here.
We might as well toss the dirt out and see if this guy can pass the ninny test.
No reflection on Fred, more of a reflection of some here.
Ugh, vegan. Still, I've always liked the guy. I'll check out the show.
The Keyes campaign supported the nominee from the convention on. Nice parsing of words there though.
I really think that Nancy spoiled their children badly. I think he probably had trouble putting his foot down with her.
South Park is a very good measure of what's going on in the world; it's one of the only shows that makes me think -- and keeps me "hip!" :-)
"I better stop now. There are a few on this thread that take this stuff VERY seriously this far outand here I am being shallow and irreverent. :-D"
I hate to tell you this but the "serious folk" can probably read your tiny copy. Oh, well. ;0)
Politics is important, but we are a ways out from this election, so I think you can goof around a bit.
I been kicked around by the thought police a few times in this forum. When the "very serious" lurk about I unfortuantely don't take them all that seriously, neither should you.
But if he wants to, I have a ready-made issue for him. Obama used the verb "jigger". I joked that it sounded like a slur. Guess what? It is!
The right really needs to learn how to feign outrage and I think Keyes could do it!
You said it.
The only weaknesses as far I can tell, from my point of view, are his past support of CFR and the tort lawyer lobby.
Everybody else dropped out in the first of February, but Keyes had to drag it out to keep those donations coming in until a few days before the convention; he didn't drop out until Bush named Cheney as VP nominee.
The Keyes campaign supported the nominee from the convention on.
What the hell else choice did you have?
Even National Review wasn't buying it.
From your link:
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.
I'm a Rudy supporter. If Thompson enters the race I would very likely jump to his side.
His support for McCain isn't a point in his favor, that's for sure.
McCain lost a lot of support during the election when he came to my home state of Virginia and trashed the religious right. Then there were the rumors of his paying kids off in South Carolina with drinks, and the push-calls in some other state (maybe michigan).
But I still thought he was an OK guy, and if he apologized for his Virginia gaffe I was ready to support him in 2008.
I was even ready to forgive CFR. But it's just the number of liberal things he's done, the totality of his acts in the last 4 years, that really turned me off to him.
Even though he was a pretty solid conservative, and is strong on Iraq (but not necessarily strong on terror with his blasting of the liberal line on Abu Ghraib for example.
And I don't know if Thompson would have the same problem. I see a lot of McCain in Thompson. I need Thompson to get into the race and do a series of policy speeches and then I'll know.
If I had to vote today, I'd probably vote for Romney. Although a Thompson/Steele ticket might sway me if Thompson turns out to be OK on the issues. I don't think Steele does as much for Romney, and think Romney should look for a strong military type for his VP.
I'll bet your $10 he runs this very year.
Hey, man,...that's more meat for you and me to eat!
Hope you enjoy the show. Needless to say, Fred's sidekicks endlessly needle him about "Love Boat", "Monster Squad" and,...oh,...let's not forget that 8 year run in congress.
I don't care if they "bought it". He VOTES correctly.
Yep. Just like his best friend John McCain.
It's called grasping at straws............LOL. :-)
So is Jim an anti-FReeper now? LOL.
Yes. I was just correcting your statement that it was from 2006, as it was from july 6, 2000.
The rest was my own comments about the thread.
I was going to suggest EV for President, but I'm afraid he tell me he wasn't conservative enough.
Which party? I know the CP already nominated their candidate!
He can't get paid more than what he makes now.
I'd take that bet. If he were running, he'd want to start now and maximize the attention.
Ohio's really a mess. With the Taft problems, the scandals, and then the pushing Blackwell, not that the RINO DeWine did any better, it's going to be a miracle to win that state this time around.
On the other hand, I think Pennsylvania is ready to go republican. Rendell is losing his luster, they got their Casey for Senate and he's already an empty hole.
And then there was the disaster on the freeway in the ice storm.
I also think New Hampshire could go republican, as well as one or two other states that were close before.
I think we should plan on losing Ohio.
I don't think so. I remember seeing Fred on C-Span and news shows years ago. He's a big, smart, serious guy that seems to fill up rooms with his presence. He talks direct and won't lower his cheek for RATs to slap like Bush has been doing lately.
He will scare people that want to harm us. That's very, very important; countries are welcome to hate us all they want. They must also know that if they wake us up and intentionally get us worked up, they will have some problems.
After finding out that Armey and Delay tried to stage a coup against Gingrinch twice (the second time successfully), I think they both got what they had coming to them.
That site is completely useless.
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
Well, more good news!
They got his age wrong though - he's actually 64.
They have? Who?
I'm sure he's going to run GOP.
I'm not quite sure how accurate that thing is. It's a fun test but by no means exhaustive.
Fred is more conservative than Bush on guns, immigration, and fiscal policy, probably similar on the WOT, and ever so slightly less so on social issues.
IOW considerably better than Rudy McRomney...
I already linked an article that said he was pro-life from 2007, Human Events.
Plus, face it, a Hunter-Thompson ticket would drive the Demonrats gonzo!
I wouldn't go as far as RINO - he's just more of an all-around, "regular" conservative, less ideological, has a basic disdain for the way things are done in Washington, loves America, and has a basic conservative viewpoint.
Duncan Hunter he's not...but he's a considerable improvement over just about anyone else out there who actually has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
That doesn't matter to me.
You actually think a thread on FR with all of 10 posts was indicative of the entire Republican 2000 primary season?
I wouldn't say that. Thompson can come across as another beltway insider, however...let's not forget that the main reason he left Washington was because of all the BS that goes on there - he's in the position of being liked well by his fellow Senators but not being quite the "insider" that would make him a negative.
How is he to the right of Bush on the issues?
That's my 2 cents.
EV, would ya lay off the pro-abortion LIE?
He can't. He's going off a 13 year old National Review article - but all his votes in the Senate suggest a strong pro-life position.