Video: Fred Thompson giving “serious consideration” to running

posted at 2:07 pm on March 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

It feels weird saying he’s late to the game with the election 19 months away, but he is. Politico explains why:

Thompson faces numerous obstacles, notably a lack of groundwork in early-voting states where his competitors have been campaigning for years. He also would be way behind in the brutal contest to sign up key donors, and many analysts see his entry as improbable. About the only factor that makes his candidacy plausible at this late date would be his celebrity and the deep dismay that conservatives feel about the current field.

Howard Baker, the former Senate majority leader, is working the phones for him, but if he wants to make up some ground here he’ll need lots of grassroots support. Which is another way of saying that if you guys want Fred, you had better start pounding the table. Hard.

Two clips for you here, both of which show off why, in the words of one GOP strategist, he’s “the biggest daddy bear around.” First up is his take on Libby. He’s on the advisory committee of Libby’s defense fund so I guess he has to say he’d pardon him, but I think it’s a mistake — the GOP has had enough scandals lately, and enough counterterrorism measures of dubious legality taken by Bush, that they shouldn’t be talking about handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards to their own guys. Then again, Thompson doesn’t have to worry about the general public’s perception right now; he’s trying to woo Republican primary voters, and red meat like this is tasty bait.

The second clip is Fred on the issues. Abortion, gay marriage, gun control, McCain-Feingold, and of course “comprehensive immigration reform” — it’s all here. I don’t get his point about “special” rights for gays although I do like his federalist approach to the issue. The rest of it is all golden. I leave you with the words of Romney supporter Dean Barnett, who wants Thompson in the race notwithstanding his support for his man Mitt: “When candidates back into the nomination because they’re the favorite or because the field is weak, you get unappealing or unqualified nominees. (Insert your own bipartisan list here – I’ll start things rolling by mentioning Dole, Dukakis and Clinton.) For the good of the country, I hope Thompson uses his appearance on Fox News Sunday tomorrow to announce he’s in it to win it.” Not yet, but soon enough.

Update: Meanwhile, Hillary’s trying to replace her husband as the official Democrat Who’s Most Like JFK. I hate to be the one to tell her but the position has already been filled.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

honora on March 12, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Ha, the stupid comments start to come out. No one is holding him up as the great saviour, just one more man thinking of running. And you, of course, think that it could never be substance, just that he is big with a big voice.
I look forward to your foolish analysis every day.

If Hillary wasn’t a woman, and her husband the ex then I wonder if anyone would notice her.

If Obama was white I wonder if anyone would notice him.

If Edwards was not a successful lawyer, was short and bald with only a high school education, I wonder if anyone would notice him.

You are a real student of history.

right2bright on March 12, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Well, since the have to be confirmed in the senate, I don’t see why that is odd.

Unless you’re referring to the Republicans resorting to filibusters to block judges – oh, wait….

reaganaut on March 12, 2007 at 9:16 AM

If you look at the record, I believe you will find that very few judges sent up by the President are not confirmed. Despite all the noise about the filibuster threat, Bush’s rate of nominees being confirmed is greater than Clinton’s and GHWB.

honora on March 12, 2007 at 9:43 AM

FRED THOMPSON RULES!

He’s got my vote. Lets put this guy into the office!

msipes on March 12, 2007 at 9:53 AM

We have allowed the President (yes, even Clinton) to make his choices and we have, out of honor of the system, we gone along with those appointments with few exceptions.

65 of Clinton’s judicial nominees were denied a vote, bottled up in committee; Bush had 10 nominees blocked, of that 10, 3 were re-submitted and confirmed via the “14″ compromise.

honora on March 12, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Go Fred Go. Ya got my vote.

Lawrence on March 12, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I predict that somebody will come up with the first (a la Geico) caveman/woman analogy about a US candidate for presidency.

Any ideas? Who want to be the first?

“Being Billary, it’s so easy, even a cavewoman can do it. ”

Now, where are the prehistoric cave drawings of those women again?

Kokonut on March 12, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Factoid: Thompson is the one who asked the famous question: “Mr Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the President?”

honora on March 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Hopefully this will push Rudy, McCain, and Mitt to start espousing some hard core conservative values.

csdeven on March 12, 2007 at 7:40 AM

Errr … so you’re saying that they can simply start lying about who they are and that will do it for you?

They are who they are, and their record is what matters. Nothing they SAY is going to change that.

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Via Drudge and YouTube …

Giuliani says there “must be public funding for abortion”

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Rudy begs for more immigration. Says he wishes the country were even more open.

Why is this clown so popular?

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Factoid: Thompson is the one who asked the famous question: “Mr Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the President?”

honora on March 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Here’s another factoid, honora:

He was responsible for Baker’s asking one of the questions that is said to have led directly to the downfall of President Richard Nixon—”What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

If these are all his skeletons, then let’s get him there – he must be tough, have convictions and not be beholden…I like that. Also, you are not fair in your comparison of Mr. Thompson to Mr. Obama, hight, voice et all.

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I’d send money to Thompson Steele for sure.

I like Rudy fine, but he is toting some rather un-conservative baggage that makes me flinch a little. He’s a closet moderate trying to be conservative similar to Hilly being a closet communist trying to be a hawkish Democrat.

doginblack on March 12, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Also, you are not fair in your comparison of Mr. Thompson to Mr. Obama, hight, voice et all.

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Oh I think they both have a sort of glamour. Thompson certainly has more experience and I suspect more gravitas.

honora on March 12, 2007 at 1:36 PM

I was sorry when Fred left the senate. I thought he was a very good senator. I also think that he is electable over whoever the Dems field and he doesn’t carry a lot of baggage.

He seems to be the ideal candidate. Adequate experience, good name recognition and sensible ideas. If he announced he would probably go to the top tier of candidates quickly.

duff65 on March 12, 2007 at 1:47 PM

FDT reeks gravitas, but more importantly, he gives all the right answers on the issues (and therefor sets himself apart as The Conservative, trumping Rudy, Mitt and McCain), if this video is to be believed and he clearly has years more experience in both government and as a prosecutor than Barry Obama could wish for.
And he’s from the South. And you’re not going to make it to the Oval Office without the South.

Jen the Neocon on March 12, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Have any of you seen Fred’s Wife?

Mazztek on March 12, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Glamour, Mazztek’s great link aside, is the least of the presidential attributes I look for. It’s a Hollywood, European and Kennediesque fettish.

Now, gravitas, experience, conviction, steadiness, communication skills, level-headedness, and comfort with self, we’re talking…

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM

“Clinton was able to have 377 of his nominees confirmed—five short of the all-time record. He lost one floor vote for a nominee to the District Court. Of the nominees left dangling from Clinton’s two terms, most did not get through the Judiciary Committee due to a specific cause: late nomination, problems with home-state senators, incomplete paperwork, or they were impeachable, meaning they had behavioral issues in their pasts that rendered them unacceptable. In many of these latter cases, the Clinton White House privately agreed with the decision not to move forward.”

Discovered Democratic memos from 2003 indicate that Democrats targeted Miguel Estrada because, “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment,” and because, “we can’t make the same mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.” Judiciary Democrats, led by Sens. Edward Kennedy (MA), Charles Schumer (NY) and Richard Durbin (IL), agreed to block or slow-walk particular nominees at the behest of liberal campaign donors, including the trial lawyers, the NAACP and the national abortion providers’ lobby. These Democrats decided, in advance of hearings, which nominees to block, and Democratic staffers characterized Bush nominees as “Nazis.”

You may think stats tell the whole picture, I like to look at the historical signficance of threatening with fillibusters, the bigotry of stopping minorities from obataining these judge appointments.

preliminary surveys of lawyers who practice before Circuit Courts found President George W. Bush’s judges were thought to be slightly more liberal than those of both the first President Bush and Reagan. In other words, the current President has not veered dramatically to the right in his nominations; it is rather Senate Democrats who have gone off the liberal deep end.

In all, at the end of the first President Bush’s term, 54 nominees did not get confirmed and we were left with 97 judicial vacancies.

If Clinton’s two terms are added together, the number left dangling is around 60—a figure Democrats cite regularly— or an average of about 30 per term, compared to 54 for the single term of the first President Bush.

I think this stat is a little more accurate than your pick and choose stat of nominees being bottled up.

Nice try, that was a little better. I think you getting so beat up is making you more aware of your posts. Now you can go for more accuracy.

right2bright on March 12, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Will he keep CAIR out of the Capitol Conference Room?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258345,00.html

Connie on March 12, 2007 at 3:55 PM

My dream ticket is Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter.

urbancenturion on March 12, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Fred Thompson & Duncan Hunter — works for me. But will it be strong enough to defeat a Clinton & McCain ticket?

Wuptdo on March 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM

One more Tennesseean for Thompson, here. I don’t know what’s up with honora’s Mr Butterfield reference. Just shows me that Fred’s willing to ask tough questions and do what’s right. He was also key in fighting the corrupt Ray Blanton administration (pardons for sale). Thompson has no baggage (except under his eyes) and he’s got conservative credentials, to boot. He’ll mop the floor with any ticket the Dems can come up with. Like Jen pointed out, nobody’ll win without the South, and Fred can carry it.

Barntender on March 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Is Allahpundit a Republican? It doesn’t sound like it from this post about not pardoning Libby.

Why don’t you demand to see his papers?

Jim Treacher on March 12, 2007 at 9:40 PM

I can’t believe this thread is still going, but we are still two years away, so why not………

How about: (and think about this before the “knee jerk” kicks in)……..

Thompson/Rick Santorum on the Ticket……..

Followed by Newt, Rudy, Duncan, Tancredo, J.C. Watts, etc… you fill in the positions.

“Win the war, secure the borders!”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 13, 2007 at 3:01 AM

Oh I think they both have a sort of glamour. Thompson certainly has more experience and I suspect more gravitas.

Not to mention a clearly stated position, backed up by a verifiable voting record. Please, honora, try all you wish. Mr. Thompson is for real, he knows the game, he actually understands the Constitution, and he isn’t in the habit of parsing his words in order to ride the edge of Occam’s razor.

Thomspon/Tancredo – For America’s Present, for America’s Future

Freelancer on March 13, 2007 at 7:30 AM

In all, at the end of the first President Bush’s term, 54 nominees did not get confirmed and we were left with 97 judicial vacancies.

The vacancies are due to the fact that Bush did not nominate enought people, period. Where are the quotes you cite from?

My info is from the senate.gov website.

honora on March 13, 2007 at 8:36 AM

Glamour, Mazztek’s great link aside, is the least of the presidential attributes I look for. It’s a Hollywood, European and Kennediesque fettish.

Now, gravitas, experience, conviction, steadiness, communication skills, level-headedness, and comfort with self, we’re talking…

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Looks like Thompson is probably not running. Has a rather blase air about the whole thing. Who knows?

honora on March 13, 2007 at 8:38 AM

One more Tennesseean for Thompson, here. I don’t know what’s up with honora’s Mr Butterfield reference. Just shows me that Fred’s willing to ask tough questions and do what’s right. He was also key in fighting the corrupt Ray Blanton administration (pardons for sale). Thompson has no baggage (except under his eyes) and he’s got conservative credentials, to boot. He’ll mop the floor with any ticket the Dems can come up with. Like Jen pointed out, nobody’ll win without the South, and Fred can carry it.

Barntender on March 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Nothing’s “up” with it–just an interesting footnote. And yes, there is a strategy that shows that if the Dems can win without the South. They would have won last time with Ohio and losing the South. Dems are also picking up steam in the West.

honora on March 13, 2007 at 8:41 AM

If Clinton’s two terms are added together, the number left dangling is around 60—a figure Democrats cite regularly— or an average of about 30 per term, compared to 54 for the single term of the first President Bush.

Go back and read the senate website. Clinton’s nominees were never brought out of committee. There were unconfirmed nominees at the end of Bush’s first term, true. They were not “dangling”, they were pushed into the next congress.

honora on March 13, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Ignore above post–thought you were still talking about the current Bush. See where you change the premise when you couldn’t back up your point with the comparison between W and Clinton–a sign of a real student of history….LOL

Nonetheless, I misread. Still want to know your sources, I will look at Senate website when time permits.

honora on March 13, 2007 at 9:02 AM

If he is strong on immigration, then I would consider supporting him. Don’t care one way or another on gay rights. It ain’t even on the radar.

He would need a better running mate than Santorum.

His appeal is as a straight talker…

Penn on March 13, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Thompson is mature; he speaks plainly and concisely and intelligently; he is conservative. I like that.

He would delay the chaotic, left-wing deluge that is coming.

archon2001 on March 13, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2