Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Run, Fred, Run
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I have no idea whether Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, will run for the Republican nomination for president, but he should.

He has Ronald Reagan's communication skills and speaks plainly in ways most people can understand. Anyone who has listened to him substitute for Paul Harvey on ABC News Radio senses that, in this, he follows in Reagan's footsteps. Radio is an intimate medium. People who are able to connect with a radio audience often can connect on TV and in person. Thompson, the actor, plays other people. On radio and in news interviews, he "plays" himself.

Thompson conveys Middle American, common sense values. When he is asked a question, he doesn't sound as if he's giving a poll-tested pabulum answer. Agree or not, his statements spring from conviction.

In an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace last month, Thompson gave refreshingly direct answers to questions. On Iraq: "We're the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve. Š People think that if we hadn't gone down there (to Iraq), things would have been lovely. Š If Saddam Hussein were still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than they are today."

Yes, we made mistakes in Iraq, Thompson says. "We went in there too light, wrong rules of engagement, wrong strategy, placed too much emphasis on just holding things in place while we built up the Iraqi army, took longer than we figured. Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now."

Abortion? "Pro-life. I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges."

Gay rights? "I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody. Š Marriage is between a man and a woman and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that."

As for "civil unions," Thompson thinks it should be left up to the states.

Gun control? Thompson is "against it generally."

Thompson is a member of the advisory committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust, which supports Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who is appealing his perjury conviction. Thompson told Wallace if he were president he would pardon Libby immediately: "This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice."

There's something else to like about Fred Thompson. He doesn't appear to be lusting after the job as if he needs it for his self-image. This, too, is much like Reagan, who knew who he was before becoming president and was the same after he left office.

It is said of Thompson that he has always "answered the call" of his country, whether it was serving as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, or in other capacities, including United States senator.

Some political "experts" think it is almost too late for any new candidate to announce for president. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he intends to wait until September before saying if he will run. Actually, waiting might be the best strategy for these Republicans. Conservative Republicans are restless about what they regard as a weak field. They want someone who can take on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and win.

Thompson thinks he can afford to wait until he again hears "the call." In being coy and demonstrating patience, he is following the advice of poet John Keats, who wrote:

"Fame, like a wayward girl, will still be coy

To those who woo her with too slavish knees,

But makes surrender to some thoughtless boy,

And dotes the more upon a heart at ease

Make your best bow to her and bid adieu,

Then, if she likes it, she will follow you."

Fame and the presidency may be about to follow Fred Thompson. That would be good for the Republican Party and, should he win, good for the country.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Amen!

Now, before all the moonbats descend onto this column, let me be the first to tell the kollaid drinkers the difference between Fred Thompson and the Hollywood that Americans have come to dislike.

Thompson holds a J.D., and has for some time. He was involved with politics and became an actor because of his public service.

Compare that to the typical Hollywood lib that barely made it through high school and use their fame to push a failed system of government.

The fact that Thompson got started in acting because there wasn't anyone worthy of portraying him in a docu-movie speaks volumes of the inability of Hollywood to muster up a real thinking actor these days.

Regardless, I think Fred is going to enter at an optimum time and within 4 weeks he will be ahead of Giuliani.

Despite his faults, he will remind the country of what a conservative looks and sounds like.



Fred
Run, we need a real conservative.

On not lusting after the job
I had lately seen only one fault in Fred Thompson as a potential candidate, which was that he didn't seem to want the job.

I had been admiring the energetic, innovative, organized way that Romney campaigns and had been wishing that Thompson had that level of enthusiasm.

However, Cal Thomas makes a good point this commentary: maybe we don't need a President who "lusts after" the position as much as some candidates do.

Mr. Romney, is a fine man of much intelligence and talent. However, I don't think it's advantageous to have a President that has to work so feverishly to establish credibility and gain mere acceptance by the public, let alone support.

Thompson may be playing this just right, allowing a crescendo of interest before responding to the call of the people.

Answer the call
I kinda think that FDT will answer the call for the very same reasons he became an Attorney General, a Senator and had to play himself in a documentary because the "actors" were too lame to be real.

Given a moment to consider, who would want to be President? Deal with a world full of crisis, political back-stabbing and lie-through-their-teeth opposition?

Only two types of people would step up; those with their own purpose and those who see a real need to correct things. I'm beginning to believe Fred Thompson is both clever and sees a callng to right the ship.

When you answer the call to be a AG you are fighting for the right things in society. Much of the allure of Rudy is his law enforcement past and that will carry forward for Thompson as well, without the liberal policy positions Rudy has as baggage.

Fred Thompson has all the qualities and recognition to carry the day and return a real Conservative to the Republican party, and our country.

Run Fred Run, and win!

Run Fred Run!
Welcome aboard Cal! I've always had a great respect for you and I appreciate your being the first major pundit to sound the battle cry!

I will continue to pray for Fred to Run to Win!

Winning combo...
Hunter, Gilmore, Huckabee, Thompson.

Ant combo of these 4 is a winning team.

Cal is on the spot.
I have been a long time fan of Fred Thompson. Well since "Hunt for Red October". He is down to earth and common sense. He is well educated and experienced. He is I believe; The most qualified for the Presidency than any one else running, Republican or Democrat.

Please don't spread the word he is conservative but do promote everything else about him.

See Fred run. See Fred run up the hill. See Fred run down the hill. See Fred run into the White House. See Fred run. Run Fred Run.

enthusiasm
Money is no substitute for enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is what will bring Thompson in to the race, true conservatism, speaking ability and a commanding presence also defeat the immediate need for money. When Fred announces his candidacy campaign funds will pour in and volunteers will come out of the woodwork in a manner not seen since Reagan. In just a few weeks we will see the Republican base's nominee, will the elite in the RNC choose to support him?

Thompson will be a mistake
The comparisons between Thompson and Reagan are misplaced. Reagan gave up acting to become a public servant. Thompson gave up being a public servant to become an actor. Although both are good communicators, Reagan had been an executive, and had experience managing a large, complex government. He had thought about politics a long time. Reagan, in fact, "lusted" for the presidency -- which was good. It showed he had the fire in the belly, the desire to help the nation, and had thought through his politics.

I have asked this question on numerous posts: Will someone please show me some legislation Thompson originated that solved a problem? Has he ever had to meet a payroll? Has he ever managed a significant organization? His bio is void of any significant accomplishment beyond his acting, and a few good questions in hearings.

Our country is heading into a time of significant world challenges, economically with China and India, politically with the entire rest of the world, as well as social issues within our own country. This is not the time to pick a nice guy with a good sounding voice, who plays likeable roles in movies and TV. The president must not only want the job, but have the innovative ideas, and political insight, and the self-disciplined strength to meet these challenges. This is not the time for someone who had a reputation in the Senate as a somewhat lazy senator.

Thompson was a Senator -- for crying out loud! How much closer could you get to being in a position to significantly help your country? Or to be a leader for it? He left that for what? Money? Acting? A more relaxed life-style? This is not the person who we now need to be leading the country. Give me someone who has "lusted" to help his country, not someone who looked for self-gratification, and a comfortable life-style.

I will be happy to support Thompson as the nominee if someone can show me some problem he solved. It is not enough to be on the right side of the issues. In the presidency, there are no second takes.

non issue
He has my vote - and i'm registered as an idiot, er, democrat. I'm easy too. I'll vote for anyone who isn't Hillary.

5 words
If he says 5 words then he has my vote.
"I'll push the Fair Tax."
If anyone promised the Fair Tax, I'd believe them like I believe Billary. But if someone believable promises to push for it and get behind it wholeheartedly, they have my vote.
Even better if they keep that promise :)

Good Points
Tryor makes some very good sense here in many ways. However, in the final analysis the only qualification required to be the President of the United States is to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US and to be age 35 or over. The amount of experience an individual may have managing large complex businesses or in other government offices is not an solid indicator of what kind of president he will make. Lincoln's background and experience would have disqualified him from the start. What makes a great president is the exercise of good judgment, the exercise of strong leadership, and the will and dedication to use both in service to the nation. A president needs to ACT with the full power and authority of his office, based upon HIS judgment of what is needed and not upon popular opinion and polls. Then he needs also to be willing to accept the consequences of his acts! I say that these qualities can not be reliably determined before hand.

Running on one's past record, and/or on the party platform may win elections but it is no guarantee of performance. In the final analysis, to borrow a statement, it "the content of his character" that matters the most. And I do mean MORAL character as well. Something that modern day politics does not even consider. In fact judging someone's character today is most often considered bigoted and narrow minded. We instead go for the "sound bites" and the polls to make our decisions. The political handlers and image makers run the elections now days. So what we get are the "Paris Hiltons" of politics rather than real leaders with strong convictions, moral principles, a real leadership ability. We instead get the "pop culture" idols with shallow character, weak leadership skills, whose commitments are to themselves first and their cronies next. They only make mild attempts to address public needs and concerns when their "numbers" are looking bad, and then only with band aide fixes that further their socialistic agenda and popularize them with the public. They are not leaders, they are followers! Following the polls and popularity constests.

I am sure the experienced corporate leaders of Enron were considered to have the qualifications for the presidency before they were discovered with their hands in the till. Until we return to judging the character of those running for office and boot out those who fail to lead we are doomed to the same fate as the Roman Empire: extinction!

Fred Thompson appears to have the kind of character we need and the ability to be a great leader. But we will not know that until he fills the office. Up to that point we can only use our best judgment.

record vs. leadership
Good points about Fred's apparent lack of a record in the Senate. I just don't know enough to know how valid that assertion is.

What I do know is that leadership is a characteristic that others bestow on you. It comes from your life's actions, your expressions of standpoints, your willingness to take a stand for the right things, and to stand by well-articulated principles. Many people are bestowing leadership upon Fred these days, and that's perhaps the most important aspect of what's going on.

Policies and proposals can be (and always are) worked up by trusted and loyal advisors who are intimate with the principal's values, beliefs, ethics, and principles. Does anyone think that Prez Bush sat down with a legal pad and a couple of pencils and wrote the "No Child Unaffected By Federal Taxes Act"? Effective executives draw those kind of talented people to them to establish and execute those principled policies; effective leaders don't pine to have their names at the top of the document so they can get credit.

The nation is suffering--SUFFERING!!--from a severe lack of principled, articulate leadership. Prez Clinton was articulate, but unprincipled. Prez Bush is principled, but inarticulate. Fred can give us both. We thirst for what he offers.

When you are ready, Fred, we will be ready to support you. But you need to do it for the 2008 race, for if you don't, we shall all be in dire straits.

inarticulate Bush
Let me clarify, please.

When the Prez is being himself in front of microphones, he is just fine becasue he does speak from the heart.

When the administration "speaks," when Mr. Bush is reading what his "people" have told him to say, it doesn't come across as articulate, but rather robotic, politically (in)correct, and insincere--probably because they aren't his words.

Thanks for your indulgence, folks.

tryor
Your question about "What Legislation Has Thompson Originated That Solved a Problem?" is interesting. Perhaps he DID solve problems by not supporting inane "Feel Good" laws.
"Them That Govern Best, Govern Least"

charisma
FDT has that leadership charisma that is hard to define but even harder to teach - you either have it or you don't. Can you just picture Hillary in a meeting with Russian's Putin? Or John Edwards in a meeting with Iran's Ahmadinejad? They'd be laughed out of the room. FDT will probably scare the heck out of every moonbat and international terrorist sponsor - which means he is EXACTLY the kind of candidate we need!

Think, Fred, Think
I, too, am unwilling to quickly endorse Mr. Thompson. Answers like: 'generally against' gun controls, e.g., scare me, as it indicates no serious thought has been given here. After this slaughter of unarmed, unsuspecting classmates, yesterday, this topic will take center stage now, and definitive answers will be critical.

Rudy is a shining example of someone who may have ~gone along with liberal (media-hammered)opinion on topics like federal complicity on personal abortion demands, as they turned it into some silly notion of a 'right to choose' bodily functions.

Liberal gun controlers will soon emerge, screaming, but if that young gun-wielder knew anyone else was armed and would stop him, it may easily have deterred him (and other public-rage killers)from commiting such insane executioner plots!! No, it isn't necessary to arm our children, but those in authority, i.e., teachers or advisors, could offer an effective shield. Gees! Hired body guards, as in S.America, would even be better than this!

Notice no one plays out this vile fantasy at the police station... or among the armed military... In Iraq, terrorist suicide bombers, recruited for their insanity, hide their devious, murderous plots (and weapons), and clearly can only be stopped by rigorous detection means - but our airports are proof they can be stopped!! Just imagine the "field day" terrorists would enjoy, if no Iraqi was permitted to arm or defend himself!

So only serious answers and indepth knowledge can lead us thru the coming issues with liberal gun-control insinuations, as the media will only report that misinformation.

Perhaps Mr. Thompson will take the time to think about all this, and prepare himself for the tough questions that will come for all candidates.

Run Fred - Please
Without Fred in the race, there are so many of us who will be halfheartedly supporting one of the "lesser of the evils" or wasting our support on one of the non-front runners.

Run Fred
I will vote for Mr. Thompson. He is not perfect, but then name me one past or present candidate who is. He does not believe all that I believe, but no other candidate does. I will vote for him because I believe he is he best on the list, he can beat the Democrats, and he is a candidate I can vote for, instead of trying to vote to keep someone else out of the WH>

Sen/actor or Actor/sen
Thompson was the "head" of commission investigating Klintons (Whitewater, if I remember correctly).
He's failed miserably.

Now - presidency? Whom R U kiddin'?
No candidate, so far, is right for US.

Fred's a Stud!
Fred has what money cannot buy! Charm and brilliance! I don't care how much money Hillary or the Dems have she'll never beat Fred in a debate, NEVER!

He was a politician before he was an actor. He has 4 times the Senate experience of Obama. He is a conservative! He has my vote , my time, and my money!

NO WAY
Thompson's selfishness is startlling. The man is neck deep in the S & L scandals. This man will take the party down with him if he gets the nomination. The threat of HILLARY IS REAL AND WE NEED TO GET IT TOGETHER. Let's be serious here. Rudy is the ONLY one who can beat her. Make no mistake. . .the future of liberty as we know it is at stake if she wins the white house.

to $$$$$$$$
Excellent summation of the election (and selection) process, but you credit the 'political handlers and image makers' with giving us the ~big picture of how our candidates will be presented. Guess we can thank(?) the Kennedy brothers (i.e., Jack and Bobby) as well as the coming of mass media, for that profound shift in political profiling.

But the constant decline of the mass media - to become more a Marxist media, since the assassinations of the '60s and the massive drug-hypnosis of that '70s generation - now allows no conservative to establish ANY image or profile that anyone might vote for!

That last election was won, hands down, by the media, allowing every liberal candidate to shift sufficiently to the right - to obtain the "betrayed by GW" vote - with no intention of holding them accountable, once elected.

Conservatives were typically presented as radical hotheads - much like they have been doing to McClain! Ever since the media's screaming success with the Goldwater character-assassination, way back when, there's been no stopping their misrepresentations of conservatives.

Admit it: ONLY the media could possibly keep Mao tse (Ted) Kennedy in office - and in a state that elects Romney as the Gov?! Perhaps we should be challenging those voting machines toooooo!!

Another stealth ccndidate
Like most evangelical Christians, Cal Thomas is not hesitant when displaying his overall ignorance of the issues.

He wants Fred Thompson who: (1) says nothing about the major issue of the day--stopping the Mexican invasion of the USA (2) says nothing about stopping the treasonous North American Union (3) says nothing about sending Social Security checks to Mexicans who have worked in the USA for only 18 months, and to top it off, stupidly suppoorts a war against a country that never did anything to us.

Atta boy, Cal, you sure know how to pick them.

Jobs Thompson held
Ahhh, Let's take a look at history for those who think Fred is an empty suit.

FDT was "drafted" into being an actor because no one was found who could play his role, so he played himself.

So a documentary was made which needed Thompson to play himself accurately because his role was vital.

I believe the role was Attorney General for the (entire) State of Tenn. That sounds like the top Law Enforcement Officer of a State to me. One of only fifty in the nation at any one time.

So I guess Fred DOES have executive experience, trumping Rudy nicely.

I need more info
The problem I have with Thompson not officially running is that his positions on the issues are at best sketchy and anecdotal. Just because he held a certain position on an issue at an earlier time does not mean to me that he’s still holding and sticking to that position.

I’d like him to go on record with his positions on all of the pertinent issues: Defense, taxes, federal spending, entitlement programs, gun control, etc. I’d also like to know what his proposals are for addressing things like social security, health care, the war against Islamofascism, our participation in the UN, etc. I don’t need to agree with every single issue, but I do need to know where he stands.

Waiting in the wings waiting for the “calling” suggests he might wait until it is politically expedient to develop his positions, which strikes me as evasive. I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for him, because I don’t have enough information to make what I think is an informed decision. But if he wants my support (assuming I’m on board), he needs to ask for it.

Dr North
Please take some time to do your own homework. In his last Fox interview Thompson said he wanted a strong border fence and the illegals to be required to return to Mexico.

Want to hear more on Fred
I've been hearing a bit on him, most of what I read and hear looks pretty good, will be interesting to get more background on him.

Rudy? Just another Democrat in the wrong party.

Gingrich? The Democrats are hoping Gingrich gets on the ticket, there's a lot of material there for them to work with.

McCain? See "Rudy" above.


More Info
I'm surprised we haven't seen the CoFR conspiracy theory nuts on this thread yet. I guess I probably shouldn't encourage them...

Anyways, does anyone have some links to sites about Thompson or Thompson's official site? I'd also like to find a place where I can buy a window sticker =)

Fred
"Thompson conveys Middle American, common sense values. When he is asked a question, he doesn't sound as if he's giving a poll-tested pabulum answer."

This is something that we need. I think Fred is a real conservative, but he can articulate his positions better then most. He does have that Reagan quality. We've missed this quality for years, and need to get it back. I don't think he's the type to back down once he says something, either.

I would also like to repeat what RichV said:
“The nation is suffering from a severe lack of principled, articulate leadership. Prez Clinton was articulate, but unprincipled. Prez Bush is principled, but inarticulate. Fred can give us both. We thirst for what he offers.”

I got it the first time, RichV, and you're absolutely correct.

Run, Fred, Run.
Signed, fRedhead

Run, Fred, but only for US
Run, Fred, run. But only for the right reason. I agree with TRYOR. I have to ask myself: Why did you leave the Senate? If you felt you had the ability and talent to lead, if you felt you had solutions to the problems our country faces, if you felt you could make a difference, why did you leave one of the most influential positions in American politics?

Does being a Senator not pay enough? Did you feel you could have more of an impact being an actor? Did you, like Reagan, write a political book? Was politics no longer interesting to you? Were all of our country's problems solved? Had you runout of ideas? Was there more attention by being an actor? What was the reason?

Running for president can be just another acting role. It gives you recognition. Your in front of people. It enhances future opportunities.

Those who want Thompson to play the role of president need to ask yourselves: If he was a great, dedicated leader, why did he take himself out of political play, and off center stage?

Fred Thompson
Fred, you have to run!!!!!!

Thompson and Mitt should team up!
I was thinking yesterday that Fred Thompson ought to choose Mitt as his VP candidate. Before Thompson came onto the scene, a lot of Tennessee support was going to Mitt Romney, especially our congressmen and Senators (i.e. Marsha Blackburn). Fred choosing Mitt would unite these guys into one bundle. As a bonus, Mitt has one of the best fundraisers behind him, a guy who naturally would have gone to work for Fred if had waited.

And if this happened and they won, we would get to know Mitt as our VP, and choose whether we liked him enough to vote for him as Prez.

I like Fred...
Better than Rudy, McCain and Romney put together. The only question I have remaining is whether or not he buys into the phony global warming religion like Newt did. As much as I like Newt, that was a deal-breaker for me and a lot of other conservatives.

Fred Thompson just might be the leader we seek.

Leaving the senate
I count this as a mark in his favor.

As some others have said, I am afraid of those who want to govern. Those who think government is the best tool to solve problems tend to be those who want most to deprive me of my rights. Better to be ruled by those who don't want the office. At least they may exercise a bit of humility regarding the power of government.

It is a faint hope, but better than just turning the government over to the professional ruling class of career politicians who want to enslave you for your own good.

why thompson left the senate
He left because he said that he would serve a limited amount of time while campaigning. I forget the amount, two or three terms. If only every other politician was likeminded. He kept his word and that means alot.

All things Fred!!!!!!
For more info about Fred on the issues and to order your window sticker go to grassrootsvoter.com

I have ordered my bumper sticker and will place it on my vehicle once he announces.

If he enters the race....HE WILL WIN and leave Hillary reeling in disbelief. I can't WAIT!!!!! You can't buy this folks!

Thompson is a neocon
Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose leadership believes the United States should give up its sovereignty to world government. Sound good to you? Well then, you have your man.

Read what Richard Gardner, the President of the CFR wrote in 1974. The article is entitled, "The Hard Road to World Order".

“the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down ... an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19740401faessay10106/richard-n-gardner/the-hard-road-to-world-order.html

How about the current President, Richard Haas?
"State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era". "In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests"
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/20032

Well...
That's great, but does he have a position on the war?

Looks like a president...
If looks only could get someone elected president, then it would be Fred Thompson. He looks like a president, he looks like he knows what he's doing. He's not all glitter without substance. He is substance and he could — like Ronald Reagan — give us back our country and renew our faith in our nation. He's got my vote if he decides to run and, for the sake of our nation, he should. God help us if Hillary/Obama (or Obama/Hillary) make it to the ballot.

Don't Overlook
Thomas's observation about Thompson's calm demeanor and communication skills can be a huge assest if he is a candidate.

With Rudy demonstarting his prickley nature (he doesn't want to talk about abortion, he dosen't want to talk about Judy, he doesn't....)and Hillary coming off as holier than thou, Fred Thompson will look like a breath of fresh/honest air.

Time will tell.

Liberty
Single issue voters always seem to be a bit irriational to me. They refuse to vote for a candidate who is only 10% on their side, so they get one who is 0% on their side.

For example, pro life single issue voters will object to Rudy (if nominated) who will be 10% pro-life and get Hillary who is 0% pro-life.

Or, your position, where anyone who ever had anything to do with CFR is a pariah. Do you really think Hillary or Obama will be any better?

Sorry, single issue voting is the road to permanent minority status. No matter how important your single issue, it is not the whole picture. Sorry, but there is always at least a second issue of some importance.

And I know from your past posts you will argue that your issue is THE ONLY ONE. Which kind of makes my point.

Tami
I'd love to watch Fred rip Hitlary apart at the debates. Watch her tweaking in anger.

Run Fred Run
Great article.
I don't know if Mr. Thompson intends to run or not, but if he does (and I hope he does) and I can help, count me in!

I'm a Fred fan!
Where do I send my contribution?

No Fred
Fred Thompson, running for a Senate seat in a socially conservative state in 1994, seemed strident in being pro-death on abortion(at least Mitt Romney was pro-death in a bid to rid us of the odious Ted Kennedy). In the Senate, he voted with the McCain-Kennedy-Abraham open borders cabal on every important immigration issue. And, in comparison to Ronald Reagan who honed his conservative message over two decades in his days after the movies, Thompson has spent no time forging a conservative message and instead prefers to act in some mind-numbing TV "drama". Lastly, he is a lawyer and a fervant supporter of trial lawyers. Lawyers are not to be trusted. Shakespeare was right.

Fred Thompson does not deserve conservative support as he is not a conservative. That Howard Baker jumped on the Thompson bandwagon early should be a warning. Conservatives who support Thompson are pathetically grasping at straws.

doginblack
Here's the link:

http://draftfredthompson.com/


Let's get this guy in the race.

He's actually wise to wait, while Giuliani (who tried to pre-empt conservatism by starting very early in an attempt to steamroll the process) is busy shooting himself in the foot and going down in numbers. McCain is already fizzling, too.

We're going to look back on this, and realize just how wise he was to wait.


S & L
Savings and Loan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Swampfox
On your 10:33AM post, you said:
"I'm surprised we haven't seen the CoFR conspiracy theory nuts on this thread yet."

'Liberty' to the rescue! Big, big surprise there!


I'm sure that all of you (especially Tryor) that are questioning Fred Thompson's motives for leaving the senate and impugning his character are speaking from personal experience. I mean, you must know Fred personally to make such claims, right!? You wouldn't be just speaking from ignorance and your own personal bias for another candidate!? Right? Or maybe just to try and sabotage a candidacy that would have the best chance to win the election (read: 'liberal mole')

I think if Jesus Christ were to run for president, some of you guys would be questioning his character too! I mean after all...he hung around with some unsavory characters, didn't he!? He never held any political office before either, so who does he think he is to try and tell anyone else how to live? He was 'only' a carpenter! Right? How dare a carpenter try and debate spiritual issues with the real intellects of the day, the Pharisees and Sadducees? He was just an ignorant, blue-collar member of the masses! Right?

As for the 'he's just an actor' accusations! These wouldn't be based on your hatred for that other actor that became president?...would it?..let's see...what his name again?...Oh yeah....Ronald 'Maxi-mus' Reagan!

Give it a rest! Will ya!? Your babbling rants are getting old!

Huckabee
Snooper -- I listened to Huckabee being interviewed by Michael Medved, yesterday. He is NO conservative. He supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens and it also sounds like he fully supports the nanny state.

A Real Person
I will vote for anybody who is for real assuming of course he/she, black or white, isn't a lefty. Fred Thompson sounds like someone WE can get behind. Lets hear more from/about him. I/We need to get excited about anybody besides what the Demos have lined up and the Repubs who have announced todate. As stated earlier, the story of the day is to win with an acceptable candidate, not to let THEM win and suffer for years afterwards. As to Whitewater or whatever, nobody is so totally honest. I want a candidate who is on our side in everything that counts, including bluffing the hell out of our enemies.

LOL
I am laughing out loud at all of the left's misinformation on Fred. What really cracks me up is how intelligent these people claim to be. Please explain how you can make up your mind when he hasn't entered yet and don't totally know what he has to say before he has said it? You cannot be intelligent if you are not objective...Period!

Liberty
Blah, blah, blah...Ron Paul. Yeah we have heard it. Problem is he is not a viable candidate. Get over it. there is more than one issue facing this country.

Photogbill
For the record, I think Reagan was a great president. But he offered solutions to the countries problems. He had experience governing. He was more than just the right face and voice. He had an agenda that was well-known because of his consistent political activity for a good many years. As I said, he left acting to be engaged into the political process. Thompson left the political process to be an actor.

For the record, I would support Jesus Christ, even though he would be crucified by the MSM. He cleaned up the temple. He performed miracles. He spoke volumns of wisdom. He never made a mistake. Thompson has been on the wrong side of campaign finance reform, immigration, and other issues.

If he wants to run, let him run. Let him speak out on issues. He was a good attorney, I'm sure. I would support Thompson over any democrat. But let's be honest. He has neither Giuliani's nor Romney's executive experience. He doesn't have McCain's military or legislative experience. I don't think he has Newt's insight. But if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him. However, I'm looking for more than a guy who looks presidential, and has a nice voice.


Hunter and
It isn't nice to pick on someone with lymphoma. I lost my oldest brother to that disease. But the Presidency deserves better than it usually gets. Duncan Hunter is the most qualified of any candidate and has the best record. We have the best candidate since Ronald Reagan in Duncan Hunter.
When the "Thompson boom" began it was mentioned that "his wife wants him to run". From that springboard, Fred T. is supposed to dive into the Republican race?? Yes, he really is; so that the waters will be muddied evcen further. The Bush League Bunch is having enough trouble trying to keep people's attention on anybody but DUNCAN HUNTER, the man whose qualifications are a perfect fit for the job of President of the United States. But of course, all commentators have already researched Hunter in depth. Or have they?

Tryor
OK....sorry for coming down so hard on you but your casting a shadow on Fred's decision to leave the Senate was totally without merit unless you know something the rest of us are not aware of. I believe I have read that Fred left the office out of his indignation and disgust about how the Senate is run, something many of us wholeheartedly agree with!

He has also spoken strongly about his beliefs on illegal immigration issue, if you take the time to explore those opinions!

My point in bringing the proposition of Jesus running for the presidency, as an example, was to merely point out that if you look hard enough, and have a predisposition to any particular view-point, you can come up with all kinds of excuses, rationalizations and/or justifications for those beliefs!

Liberty is a fine example of this point! He is so myopically devoted to Ron Paul (who most people have never even heard of despite his running for the presidency on 5 previous occasions) that he has to come up with his ludicrous CFR theories to justify his own biased opinions and beliefs!

Although I also have a very poor opinion of lawyers in general, the idiot that said that the fact of FT being a lawyer was enough to be against him, was an example of sheer ignorance.

Miserably Informed Voters

Will determine who runs - and wins.

The reason political campaigns cost so much is because the successful candidate has to run expensive, meaningless ads that promote his "name recognition," his charm, and denigrate the opposition. The fact that "name recognition" is so important tells the whole story right there in a nutshell.

So a plain-speaking, common sense, down home type of charismatic charmer should do quite well regardless of his abilities or politics.

If informed intelligence were a requirement for voting - as it SHOULD be, people like Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Barry Goldwater, and Walter E. Williams would be (or would have been) viable candidates.

Walter Williams said it best, "If the American people would vote for a guy like me, they wouldn't NEED a guy like me."

Hey Lolo
Perhaps you choose not to "HEAR" what the man has to say...It's all out there!!!

Bluebustard is dead-on
Just give me someone who won't lie to me and will put the interest of America first. The beaurocracy is filled to the brim with career politicians and other would-be experts about everything.

The most important thing to me is that Fred Thompson is believable and I believe that he will uphold the Constitution as it is written and not as he may like to see it written. Finally, and most importantly, I trust him most to appoint the next one or two Supreme Court Justices.

Those of you who
try and discredit Fred Thompson for being a professional actor might want to reconsider. All politicians are actors on the political stage while trying to create an image of themselves in the public eye. Fred Thompson is not a phony Hollyweird Liberal but a true Conservative with a deep love for his country and has the ability to see through the phonies.

It's rather ironic if you think about it. You have politicians that put on an act to fool the people. Then you have an actor (Thompson) who may become a politician to help the people and our country.

Fred Should Get IN!
Fred Thompson would be an excellent candidate, and he should get in. Cal is right to tap him as a candidate here.

Let's get him in the race and then start the questions on important issues like immigration. I suspect Fred will do just fine.

Voting for Fred
Well, I live here in NYC ---whatever Republicans are left here will probably go for Rudy. Sure, Fred Thompson is the ideological golden boy for conservatives. He has the all the qualities that Cal mentions in the article, but the main question everyone wants some answer to "can he beat Hillary?" I think conservatives in their exuberance, are touting Thompson "as one of our own" that many independents---which the Republicans will need more than ever in 2008--might fail to see beyond the label. Hopefully, the quality that will come out most is his common sense. He does have an appealing personality. Rather than harping on the traditional conservative positions of abortion, gay marriage and/or gun control, Thompson is going to have to address the illegal immigration and border control strongly and also how would he be different than Bush. This is what will draw the average middle class independent in. We know how any Republican would be different than Hillary, but republican leaning independents do not want another four years of a Bush like White House.

But Liberty is right.
Why do we have to consider those who understand the true nature of the Council On Foreign Relations as conspiracy nuts? A conspiracy is something that is being done behind the scenes, an evil or unlawlful plot (as one dictionary puts it).

The CFR comes right out in the open and tells you what they are trying to do. That is not a conspiracy, it's a an open position. To deny what they are telling you openly makes absolutely no sense. And to call someone who shows you this a conspiracy nut makes even less sense.

Brooklyn Dave: You're missing something
The "independants" you cite may not go for Thompson (a questionable assertion), but the conservatives who won't touch RINO Rudy with a ten-foot pole sure will.


Cowboy: Yee-haw, time to saddle up!
You got a crystal ball in your saddle bags, there, Tex?


Ummm......Cal? About Fred & GUN CONTROL

Thank you for enlightening more folks about former Sen.Thompson's highly anticipated candidacy. If I could point out one minor detail however it would be that you gave up ONE SENTENCE SHY on the GUN CONTROL segment of the article.
When asked further, Sen.Thompson respomded in a way I would hope a Conservative would.

WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court - appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. - you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.


Support Fred Thompson
For President 2008

Visit http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php

Add Your Name To The Petition
Become Part Of The Growing Number Of Fred's Backers

OK... Dr North

Even if Liberty's definition is correct. Is the theory? Or is it an artfully devised RUSE to get Fred Thompson's supporters to look the other way while he swipes the quarter from behind their ear?

Besides.....

Wanna know how "one dictionary puts it" when defining 'liberalism'?

"An ATTITUDE toward social, economic, political, and ecclesiastical policies favoring gradual reform and ordered change..."

(I don't see anything "gradual" in today's liberalism. Do you?)

Legislator?

Just because Fred hasn't penned any legislation does not mean he wasn't actively involved in the process.

Probably was better that he didn't introduce any, we generally have too much and most of it is inane or pork filled or anti-Constitutional.

The President of the USA needs to be someone who can lead in difficult and easy times, not someone who can write legislation. IMHO, Fred is the best candidate for the job.

Fred D. Thompson for President.

Senators always lose!!
I think that every "draft Thompson" person ought to slow down and wait to see what he has to say. Lots of accusations and claims have been tossed out, but on most issues the truth is we still don't know what FDT specifically supports. He is still speaking in such generalities that on most issues I want to hear more.

I am worried that we are forgetting the lessons that we have learned about Senators losing the Presidency. It is extremely difficult for a Senator to win the Presidency even in a favorable year for your party.

The biggest reasons are Senators having no executive experience, even though they are applying to run the largest organization in the world. The next biggest reason is Senators always get hammered for their votes. Because they have to take an official position 1000s of times on very complex pieces of legislation they are much more vulnerable than governors are.

The Dems are going to run a candidate with no executive experience and very little Senate experience in what will probably be a poor season for the GOP. This will be one of the things that saves us, but only if we nominate someone with more experience than a Senator.

I love Bush and he is exponentially better than either Kerry or Gore, but shouldn't we learn our lesson that just having the right positions on issues is not enough. Once you know what to do, (have the right position) you must be able to implement it. With a favorable legislature, Bush was unable to do articulate and implement the conservative position on many, many issues. He mismanaged Iraq and Katrina.

In a nation of 300 million people can't we find someone who is conservative, articulate and electable? I think we can and for me the answer is Mitt Romney.

Magnificus:
Thanks for the elaboration on Thompson's gun
control stance.

"Against gun control generally", as Cal left it,
sounded suspiciously lukewarm to me.

Thompson won't win any non Bush States
In a year where we probably lose Ohio we need a candidate who can potentially bring in more states and bolster our hold on the close states from '04. I don't see how Thompson brings any new states. He will lock up the South for sure, but what else? Anything other states would have to come from the VP, whose potential impact is much lower.

This is why so many conservatives are drunk on Rudy's koolaid. Rudy will win NJ, probably PA and maybe NY. That more than makes up for losing Ohio. By far Rudy's best attribute is his electability.

Romney will probably win Michigan and New Hampshire. He also has a better chance to hold CO and NV because of the relatively large LDS population in those states.

I think Romney is the most qualified person to ever run for president. His combination of experience, competence and charisma along with him being an outsider will give us our best chance with an ongoing and unpopular war.

I really don't see any other candidate who will be able to work with a Democratic legislature and enact conservative legislation. From entitlement reform and balancing the budget, to healthcare and education, to securing the borders and the war on terror, Romney is the guy. He is the only candidate that I think has a reasonable chance of advancing conservatism instead of merely holding our ground.

For those who think FDT quit
That he quit the Senate and that is a bad thing (giving up politics) you could look at this in a different perspective.

George Washington quit too, and some folks back then wanted to make him a King!

I wish all these politicians would quit after 6-10 years. We would be a lot better off.

Skinner11

"Senators... are much more vulnerable than governors are."

Mitt Romney is one of the two MOST VULNERABLE men running on the Republican side (and there are three - the BIG THREE in fact - that are ALL vulnerable to Democrat style slash & burn politics.

Here's a small sampling of Mitt Romney in action when vying for Governor, AS governor and as former governor of my fine state...Mitt Romney as presidential candidate might surprise you...but not me.

Running for Gov......

1) Was a PRO-CHOICE candidate, which served him well Mass. But once he started running for president Mitt "FLIPPED" knowing for him to win the Republican nomination he would need the Pro-Life vote.

2) Was a steadfast supporter of EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research...telling a personal story of a relative who suffered from a disease (Alzheimers ?) to explain his support.
Then somewhere on the campaign trail he "FLIPPED" after he visited a lab, claiming (I paraphrase) "seeing the 14 day old embryos" changed his mind on the matter.

3) Claimed to be 'personally' been against "Gay Marriage" but made only a feeble attempt to get our legislature to follow the State Constitution by putting it on the ballot for a vote by the people.
Another "FLIP" now that he's advocating "family values" on the campaign trail.

4) Did nothing to ease the states restrictions on obtaining gun licenses (some of the toughest in the country) though proudly wears his "newfound" membership in the NRA on his chest these days.

5) Failed as an administator when he couldn't even fire Matt Amerillo(?) Head of the Big Dig project for the State until it was too late for an innocent woman who got killed by a falling concrete panel due to (alledged)shoddy workmanship.
Then claimed he didn't/couldn't know that he had hired Bechtel (the very same company responsible for the project in the first place) to inspect the remaining panels and declare them safe or not.
Great Move!

Skinner11

The MOST RECENT (last week) Fip-Flop by Romney is as follows...notice how the Dem candidates staff is already ridiculing his stance(s).

In a 1998 Boston Globe story he said:
"Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, no-finger-pointing way."
NOW
Mitt Romney says "I think it's time for us to recognize every child deserves a mother and a father."
And that Mrs.Clinton is "wrong" thinking "it takes a village" to raise a child.

AP has already written -
A Clinton spokeswoman said she was not surprised by Romney's latest remarks.
"To be safe, you might want to wait and ask him again tomorrow... he tends to change his positions pretty often."

And The MSM will keep hammering away at Mitt Romney if he gets the nod as the party standard bearer

It might be better for Mitt to throw what little support he has behind Fred Thompson and hope for a cabinet post....Finance maybe?


FDT didn't really quit

A story I heard was that he grieving the loss of his daughter when he walked away.

On this day of all, with so much being written at TH about the grieving process differing from one person to the next, I would hope some of you cut the man some slack on "quiting".


Magnificus Get your facts straight
You obviously have not taken the time to look at any of the issues that you just addressed.

Abortion is the only significant issue where Mitt has changed his position. Do you really not believe that people can have a change of heart. If you don't believe that then all hope is lost because right now there aren't enough people on our side to do anything more than limit abortion.
By the way, Reagan, Bush 41, and your own Fred Thompson were once pro-choice. That's right FDT was pro-choice when it was a political liability in TN, not a necessity like in MA.

For the interview with Thompson in 1994, check this out. http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230

Next, show me a Romney quote where he flipped his position on stem cell research. He, like the vast majority of the country, supports using only embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded. He hasn't waivered from that position. You described the story of how he came to that conclusion somewhat accurately, but you fail to understand that he had no position before because it was a non-issue.

Your description that he made a "feeble attempt" to stop gay marriage is so laughable it almost needs no response. Nevertheless I will indulge since you seem to sincerely misunderstand. Romney did everything possible to challenge those judges and worked together with the best anti-gay marriage organizations in the country to do so. People who have read the record incorrectly try to use his support of traditional marriage in MA as evidence he is anti-gay rights. He believes in equality, not special treatment, just like Thompson.

As for guns, let's ask the experts. He has a B rating from the NRA. He doesn't get to write the laws and the 85% Democratic MA legislature isn't going to relax gun laws. He has the same position on guns as President Bush.

Romney wasn't in charge of the "Big Dig". If you knew your history or bothered to look it up, Romney had been battling for control of the Mass. Turnpike Authority from the time he was elected in order to fix problems. The Mass Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't do so and the entire thing was tied up in the courts until the person responsible stepped down after the collapse.

Check your facts next time because these are too easy.

Magnificus, don't rely on the MSM
As for the "it takes a village" quote, once again you didn't do your homework. Check out Katherine Jean Lopez at NRO's "The Corner" for the full details.

The quick answer is a big suprise, a mainstream outlet misrepresented a conservative. In this case they took Romney's quote totally out of context.

Romney was talking about public/private partnerships. He was referring to the fact that in Mass. where he ran a large and successful corporation the govt. and business didn't work together well. In context his remarks make sense that all of society has to work together for us to be successful.

He has always been a firm believer in the importance of families and that all children deserve a mother and father.


Once again there was no change of position. For some reason conservatives are especially anxious to believe whatever the MSM puts out there regarding our candidates. If you believe their crap you will be following them down a path to our worst candidate. Virtually all the anti-Romney stuff out there was started by the left and ambitious, ignorant Republicans have fallen all over themselves to eat our best shot at a conservative in the White House.

Why do you think the MSM and the left are going so hard after Mitt? They are afraid that if we listen we take the time to find out for ourselves what he stands for we might nominate him.

photogbill
"Liberty is a fine example of this point! He is so myopically devoted to Ron Paul (who most people have never even heard of despite his running for the presidency on 5 previous occasions) that he has to come up with his ludicrous CFR theories to justify his own biased opinions and beliefs!"

Nothing "myopic" about it. He is unwavering in his adherence to the Constitution. He has a perfect rating from Gun Owners' of America. He is right there with Tom Tancredo as the strongest candidates against the illegal alien invasion and the creation of the North American Union. He has never voted for a tax increase or a raise for House members. He advocates a return to the gold standard and enters legislation every year to get us the hell out of the United Nations.

You're right. I just love this guy. He has EARNED my support through a number of years of consistent Constitutional voting. The question is... why don't YOU support him?

As far as the CFR is concerned, I have posted quotes and the corresponding sources from the Presidents of this organization. They advocate the loss of U.S. Sovereignty and world government. What exactly do you find ludicrous about this? What I find ludicrous is that an American would stand up for this POS traitorous organization!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are the quotes again:
Read what Richard Gardner, the President of the CFR wrote in 1974. The article is entitled, "The Hard Road to World Order".

“the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down ... an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19740401faessay10106/richard-n-gardner/the-hard-road-to-world-order.html

How about the current President, Richard Haas?
"State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era". "In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests"
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/20032

andrews
I understand what you're talking about with regard to single issue voting. However, here we're talking about losing the sovereignty of our very country. If we no longer have a country or our Constitution, all the other issues won't matter a whole lot, will they?

Ron Paul is the true conservative
Ron Paul for President '08
http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

"There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves." -- the Mises Institute

Skinner11
YOU obviously DON'T live in MASSACHUSETTS...I DO!

I voted for Romney...will NEVER DO IT AGAIN.

That paraphrase is pretty dam close to his exact words...and it is you who should look deeper into Romney's background!!

ALL of what I put up in those posts are the ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

Then you say
"The quick answer is a big suprise, a mainstream outlet misrepresented a conservative."

Sorry...but the Flip-Flopper tag is gonna stick because it's true...and it will be your "a mainstream outlet" thhat will be pointing out the truth chapter and verse...just like me.

PS
Whats this..."once again you didn't do your homework" BS...

You either don't know or won't admit Romney's past...nothing I can do about that.

BUT after living through two and a half years with Mitt as my governor (he was off campaigning for prez the last 1 and 1/2 yrs.

SO

I place at least some of the blame on Mr. Romney for my state now having a Dem in charge. Mitt was out of Massachusetts over 200 days last year by some counts and, DID NOTHING to help get his Lt.Gov. elected until said help was too little too late.

In fact, his help may have even worked against Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy by the time it came because so many had noticed Mitt was already campaigning for president and was always off somewhere & we were getting a little ticked off about it.

Mitt seemed oblivious to this fact, which leads me to believe he only cares about his chances of moving into the People's House.

Skin
"Your description that he made a "feeble attempt" to stop gay marriage is so laughable it almost needs no response. Nevertheless I will indulge since you seem to sincerely misunderstand. Romney did everything possible to challenge those judges and worked together with the best anti-gay marriage organizations in the country to do so. People who have read the record incorrectly try to use his support of traditional marriage in MA as evidence he is anti-gay rights."

I guess to you two months of trying after 4 years in office doesn't qualify as feeble...if thats your feeble defense...LOL

AND I know why I voted for Romney and what a BIG disappointment he turned out to be...so don't try selling me on a flawed candidate...been there done that when he was my governor.

About the big dig, size of goverment the "magically disappearing surplus"...WOW I could go on and on...but just wait, eventually the MSM is going to nail him for the health care plan he touted so loudly that is really smoke and mirrors...financially at least without that surplus!

Magnificus, where are your facts?
Does living in Massachusetts make you a Romney expert? You didn't respond to any of the facts I presented about Romney. Why not? Where is the evidence for your claims? I don't think you have any evidence which is why you responded like a lefty would, "You couldn't possibly be as smart as me"' and "what I said is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH". Great answer, let's see where that gets in a discussion with rational, thinking people.

The fact that you still think Romney was inconsistent on the village quote is evidence that you didn't read the whole quote on National Review, or are too biased to see the truth.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Posted today at 6:16 pm.

The point I made was not that the text of the quote was wrong, but that it was taken out of context because Romney wasn't referring to raising children in 1998, he was talking about public/private joint ventures.

Skinner11

Gimme your best guess....

If Romney was so great why is he already spending so much money on radio and television adds in Massachusetts (which of course carry over to NH) the two states he should have a clear advantage?

No other candidate is spending nearly what the esteemed former governor is shelling out on his "home turf"......some are not spending anything at all yet!

here's just one
Boston Herald - Boston, Mass.
Author: CASEY ROSS
Date: Oct 27, 2006

Mitt passes buck on Bechtel hiring

[Mitt Romney] yesterday blamed his transportation secretary, John Cogliano, for tapping Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to inspect repairs to the I-90 Seaport connector tunnel that collapsed July 10 and killed Milena Del Valle. Bechtel, responsible for overseeing original construction of the tunnel, is among the firms being probed in a criminal investigation.

"John wanted to get those tunnels open as fast as he could, and he got as many engineers as he could . . . and he got in six from Bechtel," Romney said, adding that he has no plans to reprimand Cogliano. "I wouldn't have done that. I think it was a mistake."

After promising transparency at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Gov. Mitt Romney and his transportation secretary, John Cogliano, have refused to answer the following questions about how Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff was hired to conduct inspections in the Big Dig tunnel where Milena Del Valle was killed:

The Boston Herald is this citys NON-Lib newspaper

Another
Boston Herald - Boston, Mass.
Author: JAY FITZGERALD
Date: Oct 12, 2006

Mass. rank as tax-friendly state falls to 36th

Massachusetts' ranking as a tax-friendly state for businesses has fallen during the [Mitt Romney] administration years, according to a new study released yesterday.

A spokesman for Romney, a Republican, blamed the fall in Massachusetts' ranking on the Democratic Legislature for not lowering the individual income tax and unemployment insurance rates, as he's requested.

Shall I go on?
Cuz I can keep this stuff up till election day. Romney has left enough material in the public domain for at least that.
Like Kerry, he is the gift that will keep on giving to the other side.

Is having more money now bad?
First, you're wrong. McCain has spent money at a much higher burn rate and nearly as much overall. As you should know, most of these expenses are the start-up costs of a national campaign. Romney has raised the most money and spent the most money which is why he has the best organization.

I think if you thought about it for half a second you would realize that you have it backwards. He is spending money on NH and it is carrying over to Massachusetts. His poll numbers are moving up in NH and in the latest poll he was tied for first. He doesn't have the same name recognition as McCain and Giuliani, even in NH, so he is spending money on ads. What is wrong with that?

I am not sure what your point is, he shouldn't spend his money? As long as he can raise it he should and will spend it. If you look at the data from the 1Q fundraising reports Romney in the best position to continue with great fundraising. He has momentum and way fewer maxed out donors than Giuliani.

Run Fred Pease!
You have my vote and according to a "straw poll" taken the oter day by the American Family Association you have the needed support. Keeping in mind that most of the respondents were conservative christians here were the results:

Fred Thompson 31,376
Tancredo 2665
Romney 10,329
Paul 2794
McCain 6376
Huckabee 3996
Rudy 7612
Newt 12,543
Brownback 3973

on the oter side,

Edwards 2412
Obama 1844
Clinton 1532
Biden 92

Lolo
"Blah, blah, blah...Ron Paul. Yeah we have heard it. Problem is he is not a viable candidate. Get over it. there is more than one issue facing this country."

Why is he not viable? Because the MSM is not behind him? Because the Republican Party machinery is not behind him? Well, they are behind the likes of people who advocate open borders and gun control. Perhaps you should ask yourself just why that is.

I'm not sure of the one issue to which you are speaking, but yes, I realize there is more than "one issue facing this country".

Things like our extraordinary high level of debt; the illegal alien invasion; the North American Union; industry and jobs by the boatload being shipped overseas due to the non-free trade agreements; our failing dollar; handing more and more control to the United Nations; continuing efforts to gun grab; government spending totally out of control; a current foreign policy of nation-building.

All the more reason why I want a Constitutional President in office who has the conservative principles, knowledge and position on these issues to help direct us out of this socialist mess we have gotten ourselves into through years and years of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

I actually want to elect a GOOD President this time around. Amazing.

cat trapper
So, let me get this straight. You, as a "conservative Christian" are supporting a candidate who belongs to an organization that openly advocates the loss of American sovereignty and world government? Do I have that right?

I hear Fred's working on a book
"If I Ran for President"
Forwarded by OJ Simpson.

He's not a big enough deal to be playing this striptease. He won't win the nomination.

Run Fred Run
I'd vote for this guy in a heartbeat. See the same thing. And unlike Bush, Thompson is unlikely to get weak at the knees and bladder in promoting free market and less govt. oriented solutions. Get rid of these big govt. programs. Otherwise, I and many others may just stay home and see what may come along after picking up the ruins from a Democratic victory. And anyway, why would I want to vote for a Repub party that is just a mirror version of the Democratic Party (i.e., big spending, big govt. Repubs) that is just a tad bit slower on its way to socialism?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.