Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I had said Fred Thompson could do him a lot of good if he passed “the Russert primary” with flying colors.
His campaign had been dismissing the Washington press corps, and implicitly running against the media, refusing to do the things candidates traditionally do (enter early, do five events a day, appear at the New Hampshire debate instead of the Tonight Show). But every once in a while a Washington media institution really does matter, and Meet the Press is one of them. Simply because Tim Russert, without commercial interruption, will throw hardballs and curveballs for a solid half hour, and standard delaying tactics won’t work. Also, his research staff can find every awkward quote from 1974 that every candidate dreads. Generally, a candidate who can handle Meet the Press well can handle just about any other live interview.
This morning I had caught a brief snippet – his discussion of Iraq - and thought he was striking out. I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.
Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.
My initial shallow thought was that Thompson still looks a bit on the gaunt side. Then, during the interview:
“You’ve lost a lot of weight. Is it health related?”
“Coming from you, Tim, I’ll take that as a compliment.” Ouch. Thompson says no, it’s not health related, it’s just that his wife has him on a diet to watch his cholesterol. He says he had additional tests for his Lymphoma in September and was the results were all clear.
Every once in a while Thompson slipped up - I think he suggested that oil was selling at “nah-eight hundred dollars a barrel”, and I’m wary of his quoted statistic that car bombs in Iraq are down 80 percent – but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it’s odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed.
Jen Rubin wrote, “He does not answer questions linearly with a direct answer to the question but rather talks about the subject matter. Some find this thoughtful and other think he is vamping and unfocused.” His talk on Iran was a perfect example, in that Thompson’s position isn’t terribly different from the rest of the field – he doesn’t want to use force, but he’ll keep that option open - but as he talks at length about the risks and benefits and factors that would go into a military strike, the audience, I think, will feel reassuring that if Thompson needs to face that decision, he will have weighed each option carefully.
That voice is fatherly, reassuring, calm. The contrast to Hillary couldn’t be sharper.
I’m going to say ‘well-briefed,’ but I know that will just spur one of the Thompson Associates to call me to tell me that’s not a sign of others briefing him, that’s a sign of Thompson’s own reading and study of the issues.
I was about to say that he was almost too conversational, that he could have used one quip or pithy summation at his views, and then, finally, at the tail end of his question on Schiavo, he summed up, “the less government, the better.”
I’m hearing that David Brody listened to the section on abortion and Thompson’s expression of federalism in this area, and has concluded, “all he needs now is to buy the gun that shoots him in the foot.” Look, if Fred Thompson isn’t pro-life enough for social conservatives, then nobody short of Mike Huckabee is. If Huckabee gets the nomination, great, I’d love to see Hillary Clinton go up against the Republican mirror-image of her husband’s rhetorical skills. 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.
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.
I agree. Fred was the alpha male in the interview...and he was gracious enough to Russert to not bite his head off...but it appeared that he clearly could if he wanted to..
I really like Fred!
Bullhockey. Fred Thompson could care less about abortion, and it's glaringly obvious. Always has been.
I'm constantly amazed at how few seem to be able to read these days. The Preamble makes it clear that the document was written for the purpose of assuring that POSTERITY would have an equal chance to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. And the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are clear in their protection of the lives of all innocent persons.
Or maybe you can read, and you're just pretending that those words aren't in the Constitution.
Do you believe that an unborn child is a PERSON? Or do you agree with the author of Roe that they are not?
Right. Furthermore, unlike slavery, abortion is mandated in every state by the federal government. Overturning Roe does act on abortion, very substantially.
On the other hand, candidates who are weak on an issue risk nothing by championing a Constitutional amendment. Since presidents have no official role in the amendment process, and since Congress and the states are a stumbling block, and since the process takes many years, voila! Instant credibility on the issue with no follow-up results required!
I think you underestimate Carter and Obama. As far as raw IQ goes, Carter as a 20th century President was probably surpassed only by Wilson. Obama was on Harvard Law Review and, from every report I have heard from classmates of his, one extremely sharp individual (even though he doesn't always show it during the campaign).
Fred in ‘08.
I was discussing this about the time you wrote it, making precisely the same point. Very much agreed.
Life is more complicated that that.
Please get a clue.
Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you.
Then why didn't we decide slavery the same way John?
When it comes to basic human rights, the FIRST being the right to life, the Federalist arguments fall apart. Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states.
And if the forefathers didn't forsee that the Constitution would have to be amended at the Federal level, they wouldn't have set up the ability to do it.
I am also constantly amazed at how thin a reed people will clutch to themselves when they are way over their heads.
The PREAMBLE of the Constitution has exactly NO Constitutional or jurisprudential signficance.
I will not get into a debate regarding your preposterous inversion of the word “posterity” excpet to say that it is not even a reed, but the image of one.
Also I will not get into a debate about whether an unborn child is a person, as you will, with the absolute certainty of the amateur, confound and commingle the legal meaning of the word person with the moral one, resulting in mental mush.
I and many of us would. And JCE, I'm so glad to see you back! Several of us were discussing the other day how good it is to have you here again! : )
fred was very clear today..
He sees nothing wrong with allowing anti gun college presidents to disarm law abiding citizens with carry permits when even the state in which they abide allows that.
Pretty clear to me..
You would be surprised how many people turned against him today after that statement.
The above should read "should NOT be decided by the states."
Killing adults is left to the states. What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?
I think you are in the wrong forum?
OK. Go vote for Hillary . . . .
Why? Jim Robinson has made it clear more times than I can count that the unalienable right to life in not negotiable.
Then I guess we won’t miss you either. :-)
No. Unlike some, I don't support any candidate who spits on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
What's wrong with the idea of protecting all innocent human life, since that's the exact principle America was founded upon?
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.