Tuesday, October 02, 2007
|
|
No More Mr. Nice Guy. No more Mister Clean.
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
3:40 PM
|
In an article titled: "Expect less Mr. Nice Guy from Fred," Politico's Roger Simon writes:
"Fred Thompson has a folksy, good old boy persona on the stump, but it may not last much longer." In my estimation, getting tough is just what Fred needs to do.
Check out this clip of Thompson portraying New York District Attorney Arthur Branch.
As you'll see, unlike Thompson on the stump, Branch is neither folksy nor affable. Instead, he is confident and in command.
I think the American public was expecting Arthur Branch, but got Fred Thompson, instead ... But he's an actor. He can become Branch.
|
|
Jack, I agree. Ford knew how to veto bills. Even Reagan was disapointing when he allowed the Democratically controlled congress to spend us into oblivion.
Portlandmom, I think Mitt corrected that mistake and supported Rush after it came to his attention. |
|
JackShiite writes: "The GOP just like to throw Reagan's name around. They seem to forget it was the GOP itself that tried thier damnedest to keep him out, handing the 1976 presidency to Carter. "
What did you expect? Reagan wasn't running against Carter in 1976; first he was running against Ford, the incumbent GOP president, in the GOP primaries, to take the GOP nomination away from him. Did you really expect the GOP would just turn on their standard-bearer in the White House and dump him before the convention?
If Duncan Hunter had tried to run against President Bush in 2004 in the primaries and take the GOP nomination away from him, how would YOU have felt about that?
|
|
Let's see Bush 1, Bush 2 and now is it Romney, Thompson, or Giuliani? It does not matter. The party without any principles will nominate yet another with no principles.
|
|
"Fred Thompson has a folksy, good old boy persona on the stump, but it may not last much longer."
If Fred is going to get nasty on the campaign trail, lacing it into his opponents, he won't be considered "another Reagan" anymore.
Because Reagan was never nasty on the campaign trail or when running for office.
|
|
|
I'm not a Thompson fan, but he is right to defend Rush. Romney made a colossal mistake here. Thompson deserves credit and if he keeps doing this kind of thing it will make me think twice. |
|
|
As long as you've decided that you prefer Arthur Branch to Fred Thompson, maybe you should set your sights a little higher. Why settle for an imaginary N.Y. D.A.? I nominate Harrison Ford in Air Force One. Seriously, Arthur Branch may seem tough, but could he throw a terrorist from the cargo door of a 747 while growling, "get off my plane", I don't think so. And though critics prefer the work of Tom Hanks and William H. Macy, conservatives know that the War On Terror is no place for a character actor. These are serious times and demand the steely resolve of an action hero. |
|
We need depth of experience, not acting skill - working from a script to present an image on camera. Yes, he's great at projecting an image of strength - but we need the real deal, not a projected image.
What will he without a script? Should leadership be "emoted?" (Maybe not a real word but makes my point.)
Where are his years of substantial executive experience? His legislative resume is weak. Time served doesn't necessarily equate into citizens served.
And years of lobbying for income - where is his own voice-his track record? He was working for others as their watch dog on the Hill.
Where can we see his values? Certainly watching him on TV is nothing more than watching a talented actor. Should we elect Tom Hanks? I love the various characters he's played but what does that tell about Tom Hanks as a prospective Executive, for example?
It is dangerous to elect a man on the strength of the image he can project in the media with his great voice and stern visage.
We need the real deal. Romney's tenor voice and rapid speech and complex sentences challenge our attention span. But I could sleep at nights with a bright, prepared, hard-working, morally straight Executive in the White House. |
|
|
about his CFR affiliation, that really gets him riled up. |
|
Republican voters still get to decide who their nominee will be. Money only buys elections when people act like sheep. If 80% of Republicans are indeed seeking a conservative, we can nominate one. We can nominate Duncan Hunter. The money players won't like it and are trying to convince us only Rudy, Romney, or McCain can win. Hogwash. They want an open borders candidate. Give Americans a chance to vote for a candidate who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill it's most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
You're wrong on so many points.
Thompson has as many "flip-flops" as Romney or Guiliani. Look at his record and while you're there think about McCain-Feingold. So much for Fred's principles. Does the 1st amendment mean so little to you?
You're 100% off the mark with Romney. Why do you single him out as the one who motives for running are so selfish? It just isn't true. He is a decent, capable, and successful leader who thinks he can do some good as president.
Fred has no strength to bring to the party. He seems to lack the will, the vision, and the smarts to get out there and give an honest effort. And he is not the faith and family candidate, not by a long shot. (Tennessee Stud?)
Romney or Rudy are far superior candidates and will fight to win if they get the nomination. Fred won't - it's that simple. |
|
What we need in for president is someone that hasn't spent their entire life preparing for a presidential election. There is a big difference between running for president and actually being president.
Hey talisman - what the **** is (a) netherland? Is that where you grew up with Michael Jackson?
|
|
Senator Fred Thompson is the only major candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?
Really tick off the RINOs & leftists and contribute to Fred Thompson: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
|
|
The only thing Chicago2 distributed was an old collection of emotional based talking points repeated constantly by people like Hannity. I don't know of anyone who ever said that Saddam never had any chemical weapons. What was disputed was whether he was still making them or not. I personally thought he might have a few of them around, but not 30,000 artillery shells and rockets. Furthermore, I didn't give a damn if he did. The ideal of Saddam giving them to terrorists was idiocy spread by fearmongers. Anyone who took the time to read about him would realize that he didn't have a death wish nor would he want to endanger his control over Iraq by handing them over to non-state actors that he had no control over.
That post you admire so much is one big insipid strawman argument.
=======
If Fred Thompson were by some chance get the nomination Hillary would slaughter him in the general election. As Nixon said about him when informed he was one of the lawyers at the Watergate hearing he's stupid. (and lazy too) |
|
I salute you. I have distributed the same dose of reality to so many, and it falls on deaf ears. You did a far more eloquent job than me.
|
|
fred is a horrible candidate. he would get us slaughtered in the general.
the dude is half baked. he never knows what is going on around him. people say it is good becuase he doesn't pander. well i think its just pure lazy. if he deosn't bother to get informed on the issues, then why would we trust this guy to solve the most complicated problems we have ever faced as a nation?
anybody but fred. really. please. |
|
Yep. That's right. Saddam never had any WMD. He didn't actually gas 80,000 Kurdish villagers to death, nor did he kill a hundred thousand Iranians with gas attacks, -- the awful truth is that he wrote petty, vindictive things about them in a blog and they died from embarrassment.
You can easily tell death from embarrassment by the way the blister agent has their skin blister off their swollen bodies and how their lungs have ruptured and they are bleeding from the mouth and eyes. You can tell that the people died as they ran for cover, in the street, in their doorways. You can see mothers sprawled out on the ground where they died trying to get their children indoors and you can see their small children still in their arms.
And Saddam never spent a dime building up the dual use infrastructure in Iraq. I mean Saddam was really a philanthopist and was spending millions on "pesticide" development because it's hard to come by a good insect nerve agent. But wait a second? Can't I just go down to my local Home Depot and get that stuff?
Hmmmmmmm. Do ya think maybe Saddam lost his Home Depot catalog? And that was why he was spending millions on "pesticide" development? Or just maybe, we could stretch our minds a little bitg and think that he had something else in mind?.....
Oh, You're right.....we just need to spend more time communing with our inner child and see if maybe there wasn't, deep down inside Saddam a small child who had skinned his knee and wanted comforting. That's what was really going on with the WMD. A misunderstand with our inner child. |
|
"Thompson just today spoke of Saddam having WMD in Iraq and seems to still believe it. What a doof."
Actually, he's more inclined to be accurate than any of those criticizing about the lack of them. That's what's so funny about the whole Rush Limbaugh schmear campaign. The part that gets left out is the soldier telling of the WMDs in use against them RIGHT NOW in Iraq. The fact that Thompson even knows and/or refers to that is more telling than the cover-up schmears to hide it.
Um, any LOGICAL and Google-inclined person can find out the truth, and the truth is that they did exist, they do exist, and they continue to be used and people continue to die. Fortunately, most of them are the idiots trying to put them into play right now, but it is only a matter of time before they become aimed in our general direction - something our troops are STOPPING RIGHT NOW by being in the direct line of fire.
Go, look up the Rush Limbaugh transcripts that 'were doctored'! Yeah, to hide the truth! |
|
Fred has to come out swinging at Rudy if he wants the conservative votes. This guy has got to stop sitting around and "start working the room". He needs to get some fire in his belly or some conservatives may leave the party therefore splintering the vote in '08.
Mark
FuzzySnake.com
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson repeatedly shows that he is in netherland - worse than Bush. Even Bush admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq - belatedly and only after much heckling, death and destruction. Thompson just today spoke of Saddam having WMD in Iraq and seems to still believe it. What a doof. |
|
|
So far, the only candidate to say something transformational was Romney 9 days ago when he attacked the GOP establishment as sharing the blame for the current problems. Probably was, no follow through. These guys have no fight in them unless it is to bash conservatives. Come on Conservative Party! |
|
|
|