Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Fred Met Tim: Evaluating Thompson on Meet The Press
The National Review ^ | Sunday, November 04, 2007 | Jim Geraghty

Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-359 next last
Fred vs. Hillary will look like Reagan vs. Mondale.
1 posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:37 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fred will be “evaluated” in the primaries. I don’t give a hoot in heck what Tim Russert thinks. He’s just one vote, if he bothers. My subdivision has about 600 votes!


2 posted on 11/04/2007 6:42:14 PM PST by Tax-chick (When my mother ship lands, you're all toast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Blog Reactions roundups with video!
3 posted on 11/04/2007 6:42:29 PM PST by Jay777 (My personal blog: www.stoptheaclu.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I think Fred did great today. He was straight forward and completely non evasive. What a refreshing change! He also knew what the hell he was talking about and that's nice too. I think some people might have a hard time with his federalist views regading abortion but I don't. I say overturn Roe v Wade and then lket's fight it out at the state level...

Go Fred Go!

4 posted on 11/04/2007 6:47:08 PM PST by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I love this statement:

“Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.”

Would that all FReepers who love their country would adopt this common-sense approach this election year.


5 posted on 11/04/2007 6:48:36 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

While that is technically true; that’s like saying that Rush Limbaugh “has a little radio show” or that Mitt and Rudy are “slightly” to the left of Hillary Clinton.


6 posted on 11/04/2007 6:49:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Your "dirt" on Fred is about as persuasive as a Nancy Pelosi Veteran's Day Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No. Reagan vs Carter.


7 posted on 11/04/2007 6:49:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I'm agnostic on evolution, but sit ups are from Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Hillary is smarter and more dangerous (evil) than Carter. Obama or Edwards are more like Carter, idiots who may mean well but are clueless. Hillary doesn’t mean well.
8 posted on 11/04/2007 6:59:46 PM PST by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
This is a good approach. The conservative causes we care about will be set back decades if one of the Dems gets in the White House and gets to appoint the next 1-2 SCOTUS justices.
9 posted on 11/04/2007 7:02:54 PM PST by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

“If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.”

Would that all FReepers who love their country would adopt this common-sense approach this election year.
them.”

I haven’t heard anyone disputing this philosophy. If the eventually nominee is, as the quote says, worth half a loaf, I’m sure Freepers will rally behind him.


10 posted on 11/04/2007 7:06:08 PM PST by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Fred had no coherent answer on abortion. He hemmed and hawed and hawed and hemmed. In the end he meekly said the killing could go on. He said he was personally against it but could understand and accept why some people (states) might be for it.

C'est la vie! (Or is it "c'est le mort"?)

11 posted on 11/04/2007 7:08:41 PM PST by JCEccles (Fred Thompson is to abortion and gay marriage what Neville Chamberlain was to fascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.
I watched the whole interview and I thought "generals we respect" was completely in context with Fred's train of thought. Petraeus isn't the only general in Iraq and the left has been telling us that they are all untrustworthy. I think the writer is laboring a minor point to prove he can be as "incisive" as the liberals.

I thought Fred was excellent in the interview, thoughtful and in control.

I fear that sometimes "conservative" writers have to show their "credentials" to their drinking pals in the DC bars... and this might be a case in point.

12 posted on 11/04/2007 7:11:47 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Did you even read the transcript or watch the show? I thought Fred was pretty straight-forward; it sounds like you just didn't like what he was saying. FredThompsonNews
13 posted on 11/04/2007 7:11:48 PM PST by jaybeegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general.”

So true. This talk of third party stuff is crazy.


14 posted on 11/04/2007 7:12:48 PM PST by Rennes Templar ("The future ain't what it used to be".........Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

That’s a great analogy! Clinton vs. Thompson looks like Mondale vs. Reagan.

How much interaction did Hillary and Fred have during the Watergate investigation? Anybody know? Are they old adversaries?


15 posted on 11/04/2007 7:18:55 PM PST by SatinDoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Actually Fred’s postion on this issue is the one I have held for years. Naturally, I think it is logical, sensible, and defensible.

I really like the way Fred put it; something to the effect that people are free to enact laws that even Fred Thompson doesn’t like. Speaking for myself, there are PLENTY of laws that legislatures have enacted that I don’t like.

What you and folks like you need to reconcile yourselves to is that we Americans don’t live in a dictatorship, and what’s more, we don’t want to. All an individual can do is to be just and well-considered in his own time. Fred has complied a 100% pro-life voting record. Fred has clearly described his own views on abortion, and pre-natal life.

He also believes in the power of state legislatures to act on behalf of the people of their states to enact laws that he does not approve of.

Or that you don’t approve of. That seems to be your big beef. I’d suggest that you might consider that you are only one of 200 million plus. You don’t get to decide things all by yourself.

Neither does a President, even one that might be named Fred Thompson.


16 posted on 11/04/2007 7:26:58 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Regan ran on a Conservative platform. It is the winning platform. However, I agree with Fred Thompson that it is not necessary to have a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion. If each state bans abortion...that is it, just as soon as the Court overturns Roe vs. Wade.

There will possibly be 2 or even 3 more vacancies on the Supreme Court within the next 8 years. This is the opportunity Conservatives have been waiting for. Our Country is in great peril if the moral decay continues downhill. The Court did this to our country with Roe vs. Wade and the Court can reverse their decision just as easily by overturning this horrid ruling.

The one thing no Court or President can do is bring back the 50 million babies taken under the banner of "Choice." Live with that number in your head when you remember which of these candidates has always been for "Life." Rudy, certainly not, Mitt, today, but what about tomorrow? Huckabee, yes, but a social Conservative he is NOT! He, like Hillary, would turn our Country into a nanny state.

It would require a "willing suspension of disbelief" to conclude that any democRAT would be in any way beneficial to our Country.

Fred Thompson looked very presidential today. He set the pace from the beginning, and Russert did not bully him. It will be a very good day when we get to see Fred vs. Hillary at a one on one debate.

17 posted on 11/04/2007 7:27:24 PM PST by Bobbisox (ALL AMERICAN GRANDMA FREEPER, and a LOYAL and DEDICATED FredHEAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
But it feels like the past few months have been an escalating series of vetoes from various factions within the GOP. I’ve seen more amiable compromises on the United Nations Security Council.

I see this here, folks having not just one but a whole list of GOP candidates that they will never ever vote for, no matter what.

I've limited myself to just one. The leftwing mayor.

Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.

This is what I try to do. This is what being a Republican is about. But it's not a justification for voting for a Republican nominee who violates most of the party platform.
18 posted on 11/04/2007 7:33:10 PM PST by George W. Bush (Apres moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

You missed the relevance of the thread. I don’t think you read it.


19 posted on 11/04/2007 7:34:15 PM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobbisox
He set the pace from the beginning, and Russert did not bully him.

Fred can't be rushed into saying something or words put in his mouth. He's too sharp.

Russert really was pretty nice to him. I saw him completely savage Bill Richardson one day. Ambush would be too mild a word to describe it. It was almost a personal attack by Russert, on and on for a half hour. Richardson was shellshocked.
20 posted on 11/04/2007 7:36:32 PM PST by George W. Bush (Apres moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-359 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson