Fred Thompson for President?

I was just reading a bit about Fred Thompson. Senator, actor. It seems he is quite the conservative. Pro-life, pro-guns, anti-taxes. Just to start naming a few.

He is being thought of by some as a conservative in the mold of Reagan. His only seeming downfall is his ties to McLame and his prior support for Campaign Finance Reform.

He does not seem to be seeking the Presidency, which may very well be in his favor. He seems to have the strong points of Rudy and Mitt without the moonbat baggage.

He is currently somewhat under the radar. He is fairly well known being an actor. He also has something that has been a major lacking in the Bush administration. He can communicate and articulate very well.

If he were to go up against the likes of Hillary or Obamalamadingdong or Edwards he could clean their clocks so to speak. They don't have the side line crap they can fling at him, as far as I know anyway, so they would have to talk issues. If the Dhimmicrats have to do that they will have to lie- that means losing their base, or they will lose the independants and middle of the roaders.

I would love a Reagan like president again. While I don't know if we would see his like again, history does have a way of repeating itself.

We need a resurgence of Reagan conservatism. Maybe, just maybe Thompson could be that person.

Imagine a Thompson/ Hunter ticket. I could even swallow a Thompson/ Mclame ticket, so long as McLame does the VP role as most VPs had before Cheney. Speaking along that line, even a Thompson/ Cheney ticket would be quite the thing... Lynne Cheney that is.

old goat wrote:Speaking along that line, even a Thompson/ Cheney ticket would be quite the thing... Lynne Cheney that is.

That wouldn't be a bad ticket. Mr Thomspon seems to be good candidate. I mean look at the last conservative actor to take the presidency.

That is one thought I had.

Like I said, he has not really announced that he is running, but he has said on the Paul Harvey show that he is thinking of it.

He was born in 42 or so, that makes him about 65 right now. A reasonable age, better than McLames by a few years. The age can count against him, but it wouldn't put me off.

I think he would be a good candidate. Plus he has that mean conservative look like Cheney has.



He's a no bullshit kind of guy.

But you guys might not like his voting record on immigration.

Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Here's his full voting record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Immigration

I don't see where the immigration record is bad. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration, its the illegals that frost my butt.

Yes for allowing more farm workers in. So? As long as they are DOCUMENTED I don't have a problem with it. Why should I? Its not a bill that said let tons of illegals come in.

Yes for more VISAS? Absolutely. These are skilled workers who would come here, pay taxes, contribute to the society. LEGALLY.

Yes for limiting welfare to immigrants. What is wrong with that? I am for limiting welfare for everyone. This is again for LEGAL immigrants.

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:
hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

[url]http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU= [/url]

So it seems that he doesn't like the ILLEGALS. While the above doesn't say what he would actually do with those here, it points to his not liking they are here.

He doesn't look mean, he looks tough. Tough as nails. With the enemies we have within and without that is the look we need, that would be the attitude we need.

He was well liked in the Senate. Though I doubt the Dhimmicrats would accept anything right of Stalin.

I don't know if he would be another Reagan. He seems like his own man, with his own convictions. He would be similar in a lot of ways to Reagan. He is a communicator. He is well enough known that people will recognize him. He is fiscally conservative, and his support of McLame Reingold was probably misdirected, I doubt that he fully understood what that bill would really do, but who knows.

I don't expect any one single candidate to be everything I would dream of. He seems to be fitting the bill for a number of my key issues though. I would support him and vote for him.

I like a Fred Thompson/Lynne Cheney GOP ticket.

iluvfreebeer wrote:I like a Fred Thompson/Lynne Cheney GOP ticket.

That would be a nice ticket, though I wonder if Lynne would go for it. I also like Thompson/Hunter. That wouldn't be bad from what I know of the two of them.

iluvfreebeer wrote:I like a Fred Thompson/Lynne Cheney GOP ticket.

I'd go for that.

I'd like a Thompson / Steele ticket in '08 myself. Lynne Cheney is bright and utterly conservative but her name on the ticket would just cause the confused individuals to howl for years more.

Acutally I'd take a Thompson / Hunter or Tancredo or even Giuliani ticket (just as long as Rudy's name is second on the ticket).

Fred would bring his ability to communicate to the office and we've sure missed that for the last 6 years.

Buzzy, I agree. Bush is terrible with communication. Even when he has great ideas, which seem to be coming few and far between, he allows the opposition to say what they want people to believe it is about.

Steele would be a fine choice as well. I hadn't even thought of him.

I hear a lot of talk that Thompson doesn't have the administrative background. A couple of thoughts on that... first, none of the Dhimmicrat contenders do either, second, while it hasn't happened in a very long time that someone who only served in the senate was elected President, it may be that the people are looking for a difference than what we have gotten lately. Clinton and Bush have both tarnished that, so it may be viewed as a fresh take.

Add Steele to the mix, another person who had some great commercials that can appeal to the younger voters and you might have the winning combination.

I agree that Cheney (Lynne) might be a hinderance just because of all the crap over Dick. Also, it may help feed the Hillary support. That makes it iffy.

I surely didn't mean to trash Lynne Cheney in any way. She's great and would make a great addition to the team but we've got to dereail the Bush Cheney derangement train and we need to end the NeoCon ownership of the GOP before the Conservative Exodus begins in earnest.

The VP position is most important in gaining votes and setting a sidenote to the President's positions. I wouldn't vote for Giuliani if you paid me to but he might be very valuable in gaining NY Conservative DEM votes.

Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo as his VP would firm up Fred's conservative image and draw a lot of crusty conservative votes.

But still, I had never heard of Steele before the November elections and I really liked what I saw and heard. JC Watts might also be a good choice. I know JC some and think it was a huge waste of talent when he left politics.

I heard that Fred's wife wants him to run. She would make a great first lady. Easily as pretty and classy as Jackie Kennedy.

Buzzy,
I never thought you were trashing Lynne or Dick Cheney. With the left and their hatred that is carried on by the MSM, it would be like giving them some ammunition to do the Haliburton BS and everything that they have against the Bush administration. That's what I see.

Would she be capable? Absolutely. I would vote for her or Dick. But perceptions can play a big role in politics. Thats why I don't see Hillary winning. She is not perceived well. But who knows.

I think Thompson, if he is going to run, should wait a while. There is a lot of time till the election, and people are going to be sick of McLame, Hillary, Obamalamadingdong, Rudy and Mitt. This will be a matter of timing. Too late and fund raising is going to hurt. Too soon and you get burn out of the people.

I can guarantee you though, the MSM will probably talk up the Reagan similarities, thinking that will hurt Thompson. I think it will help him.

old goat wrote:It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

When we were running deficits preston had the best advice when you are in a hole first thing you do is stop digging.

I guess if you are in an immigration hole,...

biopiracy wrote:

old goat wrote:It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

When we were running deficits preston had the best advice when you are in a hole first thing you do is stop digging.

I guess if you are in an immigration hole,...

Maybe the opposite would work better in that case... keep digging till they are buried.

I like the bathtub overflowing analogy.

If you have a bathtub that is overflowing, its running all over the floor, out the door, down the stairs, what do you do?

Do you start mopping? Do you start looking for the clog? Or do you first turn off the water running into the overflowing tub?

My choice would be to stop the flow FIRST. If you don't not amount of mopping afterwards is going to do any good. The clog won't relieve enough to stop it from overflowing.

Same for illegal immigration. Stop the flow coming in first. THEN look on how to deal with the ones that are here.

I like the down home common sense theme, it seems to resonate well with the people that I've sent some of his audio clips to, even the more moonbat among them.

We need a President who communicates well and builds a consensus within America through his communciations.

And believe it or not he's even made some State's Rights comments (regarding same sex marriage I believe but any State's Rights message is good in my book).

Here's an audio clip I like

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/03/28/harveycomment338pm.mp3

Since the repubs have a bad habit of blowing it . . . I'm in favor of a military coup and having Fred Thompson installed as President, and his first act being to re-enstate the US Constitution, which we seem to have ignored for several decades.

What do you think about his cancer announcement? He said its in remission, and I think it signals his intention of running.

Health issues can be problematic for politicians. One strike (of MANY) against McLame is his age. He is getting old to be starting a Presidency. Thompson isn't all that young either.

I think a coup is something that would rip this country apart and send us into outright civil war. While I would like nothing more than to see the Constitution upheld and for the deadwood and dangerous enemies of the state who are in congress to be weeded out, I would not really like seeing the struggle of a Civil war. I don't know if we would ever fully recover.

Of course if Hildabeast ever got elected...

I don't think that Thompson's lymphoma will hurt his chances. It's not an aggressive type, he's not on medications etc.

Yeah, he's older but given the demographics and the fact that older voters vote much more than younger voters I think it will be a plus and not a negative.

I'm pretty firmly in the Thompson camp already. I can't handle much more of corporationists and globalists. I like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter OK but even I can see that they can't win the nomination let alone the presidency. Thompson can speak, damn just a few minutes into an audio clip from him and I relax enough to think we might just survive this insanity. He's small government and a fiscal conservative who actually can speak about State's rights without a wink and a nod (and a smirk). I think he'll pull in votes from a lot of blue dog Democrats too, those who are scared to death of Shrillery and Osama. If not Thompson then I think I'm left with Romney. I could vote for Romney without holding my nose but I really don't want to.

BTW, seems there's a lot of suggestions for Thompson to pick Steele as his VP. That would be great.

Buzzy, I too am in Fred Thompson's camp. If he runs, I will vote for him.

There is some baggage with him, as there will be with ANY politician. However, he seems to generally be right on most of my big issues.

Steele would be a tremendous choice for VP. Both Thompson and Steele can communicate very well. Imagine what a refreshing change that will be from the past 6 years. That would also set up Steele for a run himself after Thompson. Steele is young enough to counter the age of Thompson.

I worry a little that Tommy Thompson is in the race though. I worry about name confusion, I don't want Tommy Thompson in, though he isn't really that bad.

Duncan Hunter would be fine, but he won't gain traction. McCain I think will be out early, the people who vote in the primaries aren't going to go big for him. Rudy won't match up to Thompson, though I think Rudy has some really good things going for him, he is too moonbat in a lot of key issues.

Since only about 3 people in this country know who Tommy Thompson is or that he's running for President I don't think it'll be a problem. If so ballots that just say FRED! would take care of it.

Buzzy wrote:Since only about 3 people in this country know who Tommy Thompson is or that he's running for President I don't think it'll be a problem. If so ballots that just say FRED! would take care of it.

Trouble is we have a bunch of idiots who vote, most have no idea of the issues of today, let alone differentiating between TWO Thompsons.

I think Tommy will tank early on. Not that I would be against him, per say, but Fred is the desired candidate that I have seen so far.

Personally, of the GOP, I'd prefer Mike Huckabee, but he has no chance.
That being the case:

I LIKE FRED!

I agree that Huckabee would be good, but as you say, he really doesn't have much of a chance. Fred's face is well known, but name recognition is low. That can change fairly easily once Fred announces.

I think he is waiting on timing. Too many are in the race and people are getting tired of hearing about them. Fred will be a welcome change, but if he comes in too soon he will wear that out like the others. If he comes in too late he runs the risk of money being spoken for.

This will be interesting. I hope he is spot on in how he times it.

I think Fred is the best option as well. But you can't neglect the moneyed interests in the Northeast. So I think a Thompson/Romney ticket would work well for the GOP and wouldn't divide the conservative base and the Wall Street business class.

On the other hand, Rudy would completely tear apart the GOP if he got the nomination. A pro-death, anti-gun, pro-homosexual candidate is not something that conservatives are going to vote for. They’d be better off voting for Hillary. Clinton is probably to the right of Rudy. Compare Hillary, a faithful wife and a good mother, to Rudy, a womanizer and a terrible father.