"Fred Thompson widens lead to nine points in latest Rasmussen Tracking Poll 9/13/07"
VETS ARE STILL SIGNING UP AT:
Posted on 09/13/2007 9:05:51 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.
Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."
He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes...
Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.
Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.
In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
George Fwill continues his slide into irrelevance.
I never really liked George Will. His monotonic delivery makes me believe that he belongs on PBS. He’s about as exciting as a 50# bag of fertilizer. His columns are not real exciting reads either.
****************
A wise move. :)
Yes he does, living in the beltway, doing cocktail parties with liberals will do that to you.
George Will is one of the most intelligent commentators of the day. The fact that he does not agree with a position of yours makes him no less intelligent.
Mitt fell into 4th place and trails McLame by 3 points.
Bad news day for NE liberals and Georgie Will is stamping his feet.
I think he's lost a few IQ points over the years. I think it is an inescapable side effect of being inside 495.
George will is in the tank for Rudy and has had it out for Fred (whom he sees as a threat for Rudy) since rumors were out and about that Fred would win.
Just the fact that he is willing to sell out his conservative principals and tarnish his reputation with conservatives everywhere by supporting Rudy tells you everything you need to know.
Every hit-piece editorial that he does against Fred, and there have been many, is motivated by his FEAR OF FRED!
Also, the fact that he is willing to throw his principles away to support somebody so clearly antagonistic to his principles leads one to truly question your characterization of George Will as intelligent!!
I'll take Charles Krauthammer any day for raw intelligence.
I am sure that he is intelligent.
Let me pose this question - Who would you rather see on the lecture circuit - Him or Ann Coulter. I don’t doubt his smarts - it is his dry delivery that I have an issue with.
After reading this column, it seems to me that he is trying to score points with his ABC/WaPost buddies- must be a big gala that he wants to be invited to.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t always agree with him, but for the most part, he brings a sharp mind and an outstanding command of the language to shine light on clearly and carefully thought-out arguments. It seems to me that he makes good points here. I’ve been busy, so I haven’t been following Fred’s entry closely, but I’ve heard other credible conservatives saying similar things as George Will has.
"Fred Thompson widens lead to nine points in latest Rasmussen Tracking Poll 9/13/07"
VETS ARE STILL SIGNING UP AT:
So correct. I remember when he finally “realized” that the 2nd amendment was there for a reason and that gun control didn’t really work. Don’t think he ever backed off his original thinking by too much, but it was an eye opener that this “so-called” conservative didn’t even realize the importance of the 2nd amendment.
*************
Heh. I didn't know Wills lived in MA.
Oops. That should be “Will”.
Fred was incoherent on the Laura show. His speeches have been boring. Those are facts. He can still get the nomination but so far his responses have been less than endearing and I am not a George Will fan. Fred is not the second coming of Reagan. He looks twice as old as he should for the race. Those things being what they are Fred needs a crisp message that can de-throne Guiliani. His message has to resonate with the base. To have Fred connected to McCain Feingold does not exactly get my juices flowing. I wish Huckabee or Hunter had a chance to unseat Ghouliani, but they don’t. It is entirely up to Fred to harvest his percentages at the ballot box otherwise we get the RINO Ghouliani.
George Will has spent too much time rubbing elbows with the Lefties in the D.C. bars.
Like the rest of the D.C. RINO’s, he has about as much credibility as a screen door on a submarine.
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.