Skip to comments.What Fred Said [Thompson On CNBC Kudlow & Co. Tonight - 7PM (EST)]
Posted on 11/15/2007 2:36:10 PM PST by calcowgirl
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What Fred Said [Larry Kudlow]
I just sat down with presidential candidate Fred Thompson, for an interview that will air tonight on Kudlow & Company. The former Tennessee senator was in good form.
He attacked Warren Buffets tax-hike proposal on the rich as totally wrong, and Buffett himself as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.
He agreed with Dick Armey that the GOP will lose if it departs from the first principles of limited government and lower tax rates.
He called the farm bill disgraceful and would veto it if he were president.
He said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are wrong on taxes. He noted that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of all tax collections now; that the tax code is progressive enough; that theres plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.
Thompson is a staunch free trader. He stood firmly behind his Social Security reform plan that would slow down future benefits and provide for private savings accounts.
FRed on Kudlow & Company Ping!
He called the farm bill disgraceful and would veto it if he were president.
compare with Huck, the agrisocialist:
That's what a good candidate can do if they have given up on Iowa. Nice to see SOMEONE say it.
That was one of the more interesting things on West Wing, when they made the liberal candidate eat his words on farming to be competitive in Iowa, I think it was about ethanol.
Good post, always record Kudlow. Look forward to seeing it. Did Mister “SuperCapitalism” Reich get to shoot his big mouth off after the interview. I just don’t get why Kudlow gives him so much face time.
Sorry, the show is not on until 7pm EST
I figured that was why Huckabee was doing so well in Iowa.
Thanks for the heads up about Fred being on Kudlow & Co tonight at 7:00PM Eastern. Will be sure to watch! Thanks!
I just sat down with presidential candidate Fred Thompson, for an interview that will air tonight on Kudlow & Company. The former Tennessee senator was in good form.Great news, calcowgirl! Larry interviewed Fred on Kudlow & Co. about five months ago, and on his Saturday morning radio program following that interview, Larry was not impressed with Fred at all.
Now I can't wait to hear what Larry has to say about Fred this coming Saturday morning.
“He called the farm bill disgraceful and would veto it if he were president.”
Hey, I supported Bush in 2000 because he said we had to end our farm subsidies and he was going to do that!! So, Fred, forgive my cynicism if I don’t believe you have the guts to do what you say. Did you ever, as Senator, demand a smaller farm bill that what any president offered???
Yep... I came across that when looking for the line-up for tonights show. The old inteview was in June
At the NRO link, Kudlow says:
“It was a lively interview, and Fred Thompson is not afraid to mix it up. I went at him. He came right back at me. It was great fun. Hes a serious and impressive man. Much stronger than when I interviewed him back in June.”
I believe Kudlow will not be the last who comes to change their mind about Fred after they get to know his stands on the issues. Fred will continue to gain in the polls!:)
Bush the compassionate conservative?
Fred voted no on the 2002 farm bill
Anyway, Fred gave a live speech around noon to selected employees of JPMorgan Chase. Hillary! had blown in here about a month ago, to adoring fans. The audience response for Thompson, the second candidate we've had, seemed subdued, at least the people in the room looked it. There might have been lots of people on the web connection I was viewing (the host indicated a few thousand) because the connection kept breaking up, so I lost what Fred said in a few segments (there was no replay option).
Fred was relaxed and conversational. He gave an extremely well developed monologue about how his strategy on the War on Terror (though I don't think he used the WoT term), individual liberty, economic growth, social security, entitlements and the future fit together. I was stunned. I remember thinking how elementally conservative it sounded, fitting with my own beliefs extremely well if not necessarily with all specifics (mainly, because I don't have specifics on many issues that a candidate needs to have them for). I remember thinking how I could not imagine GW Bush giving this type of a speech. Bush might give a stump speech about "Why I think free markets are super cool and why your taxes should be lowered". This was not a stump speech. This was like a 15 minute essay response to "What I think are important issues for America's next president and how I intend to address them".
My reaction is, if we can just get Fred in the White House, America will be A-OK. I imagine Fred will be receiving some contributions from JPM employees in the near future.
and if you really want to be impressed see who cast the one no vote on Wellstone’s amendment
info on that rally
Trying to talk Hubby into taking some time off to go with me. I always have a difficult time finding my way around Pcola.
so Fred is a philosopher :)
I wonder if America is ready for that approach vs the pragmatic “I lowered taxes in my state/city and it helped the economy”
Thanks for the ping. Watching NOW.
Go Fred go.
Fred did a great job! He impressed Kudlow it was obvious. Hope many got to see Fred this evening! GO FRED!
Fred gave one of his best interviews ever. The finance experts agreed. A “President” Thompson would be great for the economy and Wall Street. My old friends on Wall St, agree.
Go Fred go!
I agree. It just amazes me to watch some on here oppose someone who REALLY IS A CONSERVATIVE--and is probably the best chance we have to get a 'consensus conservative' who will UNITE the Party and ENERGIZE the base--BOTH of which will be required to beat Hillary.
If Fred were to be endorsed by Jesus Christ himself, some on here would scoff that Fred was being endorsed by someone who is weak on crime and supports government taxation.
Kudlow is interviewing Romney tomorrow night.
Romney's on tomorrow night. I think I'll tune in just to observe the sharp contrast between his answers and Thompson's, his slickness and Thompson's forthright honesty and courage.
I agree. He was firm and confident in his answers. Fred is Fred. By the way, my father’s name is Fred and my brother’s name is Fred. Feels like home.
Thanks for this report. One of the great things about free republic is getting first hand reports like this.
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
It sickens me that, even for so-called conservatives, it’s all about the government tit.
Did this air today, or will it air tomorrow? And if it aired today, then will it be replayed?
Man, somebody really needs to grab up videos of all of Fred’s appearances and post them online.
It aired today. He will be interviewing Romney tomorrow.
I’m not sure about a replay. HIs CNBC website looks like it hasn’t been dusted off in months:
Hmmmm....someone's been saying that and most of everything else Fred recently discovered about limited government. For the past 30 years.....
Oh how I love it so. He was indeed a bit rusty, as I have said in the past, but he is getting the old Fred back, the one who came from behind and won before. Just in time for the kill...
REALLY IS A CONSERVATIVE
50 percent on here are for Duncan Hunter who is truly the conservative. Fred is not as Presidential as Duncan. Before I get bash about the 50 percent look on the homepage of FR and you will see 46 percent which rounded up is 50 percent. We are split and that will not bode well for either one of them on election day so why not get behind a candidate whose views never changed...Duncan Hunter!!!
How do you figure that...
Romney? Ugh. Guess I better cancel the recording for tomorrow.
Duncan has always been pro-life. He has been married to the same woman. He is calling on two important amendments. He did not get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. Just a small sample of the differences.
Now back to the question...
How is he more “Presidential”?
He has military experience. He has been around for 26 years. He does not have the liberal influence of Hollywood behind him.
Not exactly 50/50, but math was never my best subject, maybe I am missing something...
Not that these men are the same, but the similarities seem to indicated the characteristics you mention are not necessary or specific to being “Presidential” including for those who seek such office as a conservative...
Just a thought....
Go Fred, GO!!!
ouch. But just as long as you’re not JUDGMENTAL — i guess that’s all that counts.
You think being married to only one woman, and NOT getting a girl “pregnant out of wedlock” are strong criteria for the kind of statesman / President we need at the next election?
A little more depth of insight into leadership would probably be good for you, I would imagine.
He who has been forgiven much, forgives much. I want a mature, competent, experienced leader in the White House, not a robot, or some cookie-cutter image of perfection. Are you really that shallow?
Ronald Reagan had been out of hollywood YEARS after deciding to run for President. I don’t like the fact that he was divorced, but I was too young to vote at that time. I don’t know who was running against him in the Republican primaries.
I am not judgmental to people in general (don’t care what people do), but why not show the weaknesses (yes we all have them but were not all running for president) of a candidate then show a candidate who does not have those weaknesses. Duncan does not have those particular weakneses.
LOL. I'm a glutton for punishment--I like to listen to them all.
I even listened to much of the Dem debate tonight.
Let me guess, you keep a cat-o-nine-tails in the closet. I’m not judging or anything, but self-flaggelation just ain’t my thing. ;)
RR, FDT and others were not of that mind set no matter their involvement in films.
Remember Fred was a successful lawyer first, then an actor, even Reagan can’t say that.
None of that physical punishment stuff!
I watch as a method of learning—kind of that “know thy enemy” stuff.
I honestly think this is a very over rated criteria. I remember Al Gore and John Kerry making the same claim. It still didn't convince me that they would be good Presidents.
He has been around for 26 years.
He does not have the liberal influence of Hollywood behind him.
Interesting comparison. I could make the argument that Hunter's 26 years in elected office would "contaminate" him far more than Thompson's time in "Hollywood." I think there is a reason we tend to elect governors, and that reason is NOT simply executive experience... it is that governors are not multi-decade Washington dealers.
I have no big problems with Hunter, but I think his ideas... the ones that matter in an executive setting... are not as well thought out at this point. If elected president, Hunter will not have any say in amending the constitution. Only a pulpit, and he has that now.
Overall, I think the decision should be based on what we think the man will do as president (and prior to that, as a candidate). I think Hunter would do well. I think Thompson's philosophical underpinnings equip him better to lead. I also think his approach and demeanor will draw more than his share of democrat and independent voters. We aren't voting to reward someone for past good behavior. Looking forward, I see Thompson as a better candidate for both the nomination and for the presidency.
Right! Fred, I don't believe you'll do what you say because someone else didn't do what they said!