Skip to comments.Fred Thompson Tears Down The Fourth Wall
Posted on 04/25/2007 3:52:33 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Few probably would have paid much attention to a mild little essay by Ponnuru taking Fred Thompson to task for votes on a couple of issues that, as even Ponnuru noted, few if any actual voters care passionately about, such as federal pre-emption of state laws and a federal cap on attorney's fees in state tobacco cases. "But if conservatives mean what they say when they complain about the dangerous rapacity of the trial bar," Ponnuru challenged, "they ought to ask Senator Thompson a few hard questions."
Much to everyone's surprise, Fred Thompson quickly dashed off a response, posted on www.nationalreview.com -- a devastating, substantive, smart, wry and above all personal response. For example, on his opposition to a bill that would federally regulate lawyer's fees in tobacco cases: "Get this: Under the amendment the states would have been required to send the attorneys' bills to the House and Senate Judiciary for approval," riffs Thompson. "As I said on the floor on May 19, 1998, 'I did not come to the Senate to review billing records from lawyers in private lawsuits.'
"For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker ...
"This discussion," Fred Thompson goes on to say, "is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles."
It's one of those small incidents that speak volumes. Can you imagine McCain or Giuliani personally debating a senior editor on National Review's Web site? By tearing down the fourth wall, Fred Thompson announced to conservatives, more eloquently than even his words could, that he really is one of us.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I would vote for Fred.
I would too.
I’d love to see this man in a televised debate. Prediction: If Fred becomes an official candidate and goes on to win the nomination, the Democrats will not be asking for weekly debates or any such nonsense. They’d be too worried that Fred would oblige them, and they know that Fred is loaded for bear.
As soon as he announces the headline will be- “Fred is ahead”.
I’ve been one of those hoping that Fred would get in the race, but now I’m not sure. He sounds good, but could he ever be President? He has a bad habit of speaking his mind and answering his critics with well founded facts. He even goes so far as backing up his facts with the constitution. What kind of President would do something like that? /sarcasm.
Could this be Fred, or Rudy?
The Spirit of the Lord says, hear the Word of the Lord tonight: this Nation has waited and waited and they have said, revival, revival, revival. God said, there is more than revival. We have revived and brought back but a spirit of resurrection is upon you. For God said, I am breathing, I am breathing upon the people of this Nation. I am breathing upon the churches that are going down and I am bringing them up, says the Spirit of God. I am breathing upon the political powers that be. For God said, I will not forget 911. I will not forget what took place that day and I will not forget the gatekeeper that watched over New York who will once again stand and watch over this Nation, says the Spirit of God. It shall come to pass that the man that I place in the highest office shall go in whispering My name. But God said, when he enters into the office he will be shouting out by the power of the Spirit for I shall fill him with My Spirit when he goes into office and there will be a praying man in the highest seat in your land. And God says, even a greater move of the Spirit shall take place and your enemies will finally be subdued by the year 2009.
Restoring federalism is one of the keys to ridding America of the federal fascist bureaucracy, its writing of law, establishing administrative courts and enforcing bureacratic decrees with armed thugs.
The entire federal bureaucratic structure, with the exception of those engaged in national security, is an anathema to the democratic process. We can’t have an unelected, dictatorial bureaucratic syndicate writing law and expect to maintain a free society.
I think it prudent to stand by and watch the Presidential Contender chaos for awhile, but really am liking so far what I see of Fred Thompson. He certainly is more informative of detail than most. That stems from honesty. He speaks truth without a care. I like that.
Where did you get that from?
Exactly. This is the kind of man we need, who’s not just conservative, but can articulate and most importantly SELL conservative positions instead of just pandering to the squishy “moderate” center.
We don’t win elections by pretending to be moderates. We win elections by convincing the electorate that our core, bedrock, unyielding principles are BETTER.
hell never get elected.. unless he smiles more...
Imagine a president that can actually express himself.
Sad but true.
I heard on Fox News last evening that Fred has signed a deal with ABC as a political commentator. If this is true I don’t think there is much chance that he will be running for president.
If Fred runs he is getting some of my hard earned dollars.
I have two words about Fred - McCaine Finegold.
And some believe he doesn’t have a fire in his belly. Hmph.
This is not good news unless the TV contract is short term. He could use this national exposure for greater name recognition among the unwashed.
I thought Newt Gingrich had a wonderful idea in proposing it. As documented here, I am a long time advocate of an ample debate. I would actually propose that it be done on radio and the Internet, much as Rush does his podcasting and "dittocam." That way there'd be no impact on the candidates' time/schedule so far as getting to the venue of the debate is concerned - it would be a virtual meeting.
The more time you spend talking, and the less formatted and scripted the talk is, the more candor will result. Does anyone seriously think, for example, that Rush's fans don't know his political perspective exactly? He has exposed it to the public for an hour and a half (exclusive of commercials and news breaks) every weekday for eighteen years. Without guests, and with calls. Whatever else you can say about Rush, his character wouldn't be a legitimate surprise to anyone who had even a passing interest in his character. That is hardly the result that is intended in the formatting of "objective news" reports; the reporter's character is supposed to be obscured completely by the format and the script.
And the televised so-called "debates" between presidential and vice presidential candidates are not that; they are joint news conferences. And since the "moderator" is an "objective journalist" - and since a "liberal" is merely someone whose attitudes "objective journalists" approve, but who is not employed as a journalist - the televised "great debates" are stacked against the Republican candidates from the gitgo.
Ummmmm...you’re not trying to suggest that these are the actual words of God Almighty, are you? They sound like something overheard in a Pentecostal church service.
If I were his age, I'd take the ABC gig over the rigors of today's obscenely-hateful campaigns and the thankless stresses of POTUS any day.
If this report is true, it has NOT made my day.
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
To represent the word of God without divine control is blasphemy.
Let us know when Mr Perfect shows up. For the rest of us, Fred looks like the most conservative choice who has a viable chance of election
That applies the George Bush, too. And we voted to reelect him anyway. At least I don't think Thompson was a point man on Feingold, like McCain was.
The reality is not merely that McCain-Feingold contravenes the First Amendment, but that all "Campaign Finance Reform" legislation does so - and that the licensing of broadcasters by the FCC contravenes the First Amendment even worse than "Campaign Finance Reform" does.
He articulately and intelligently speaks on issues. He doesn’t avoid questions.
As straight a shooter as I have seen.
Co-sponsor of the McCain Feingold bill.
‘Nuff said......and one too many rights of mine stolen from me.
Found it here with a Google search:
“He looks like death warmed over and he has cancer. (I’m sure it’ll stay in remission while enduring the stress of office.)” I think you can say the same about Rudy. Oh, yeah, and he’s MUCH WORSE on policy issues, and has less experience (mayor just ain’t that hard a job).
I am absolutely thrilled that FDT is making ‘Federalism’ a campaign issue.
Most people do not know what Federalism means. In a nutshell it means there are limits to power at the federal level and beyond those limits it falls to the States and local governments.
It means overturning Roe vs. Wade.
It means abolishing the Department of Education.
It means a reversal of the abuse of the commerce clause.
It means a thousand other things that will enable America to get back to the business of the States, where they function as semi-sovereign laboratories in the practice of governing to maximize freedom and prosperity.
FDT is right for the times.
1) He is a thoughtful person who engages his brain before his mouth.
2) He knows that rebutting an argument does not include a personal attack.
3) His mind may be changed by fact, not by “wind of the day”.
4)He has conviction and would not be a candidate thrown up by the Republican party just “Beat the Demo”... That, to me, was the biggest of Kerry’s sins... Not the least by any means, but it was the biggest.
5) He is... A statesman... Something we have not seen in this country since, in my opinion, FDR.
Does this make me a liberal, heck no! I’m a conservative, but statesman, which this country truly needs, have been far and few between in the last 70 years, IMO. And I do not care which side of the isle a statesman comes from; Lieberman or Thompson.
Every time the RNC asks me for money, I tell ‘m “I’m waiting for Fred!” ;-)
Oh, bullcorn. Nobody stol Jack Shiite from you. LOL!
Tort reform??? THAT is what Fred’s opponents think will galvanize folks against him? How pathetic.
The story is over. Ponnuru had his 15 seconds.
The story only served to signal FDT is going to educate the populace on the philosophy of ‘Federalism’.
Ahem! That’s FRederalism. :D
Reagan was a conservative, but was tempered by pragmatism. We got Sandra O'Connor on the Supreme Court and a hasty withdrawal from Lebanon because the Great Communicator saw that a more conservative, tougher stand on such issues would be politically untenable. To his credit, President Bush has stuck to his guns on the Iraq war, to the detriment of his approval ratings. (Unfortunately, his limited war and nation building strategies are wrong.)
If Thompson and his appointees are tough enough to clean house in the liberal agencies and effective enough in communication skills, he will be a President even greater than Reagan had been.
Wow....Fred steals my 1A rights and Fred supporters use the tired tactic of denial to make it go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.