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.
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 Next »
I veiw the Libby pardon they way I veiw Ford pardoning Nixon. It would end a worthless debate at a time when the US is in a serious struggle for its very life. It really makes me upset that 5 years after 911 we are more concerned about the leaking of a small fry CIA agent’s name to the media at the same time the media is leaking to the enemy info on actions the US is taking to track them down.
The diverter isnt working for G W Bush he works for the MSM and the democrats and they’d rather talk about silly worthless crap than about a ruthless enemy that murders thousands every month.
William Amos on March 11, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I never really knew where he was the issues, but I just found this on his voting record. I like him. Let’s make him President.
frankj on March 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Was this taken verbatim from daily kos? “Dubious legality?” By far left wing fanatical kooks I suppose. “Scandals?” You mean the non scandal that was the Plame fiasco? Could you please give examples of these Kos talking points?
Capitalist Infidel on March 11, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Fred for president! At this point Rudy’s my man but boy does he have a walkin closet full of skeleton!I could see THompson wiping the floor with anything the dems put up, as well.
debi118 on March 11, 2007 at 2:33 PM
When Sandy Berger gets off with a wrist slap, then yes, Libby SHOULD BE entitled to a get out of jail free card.
Liberals have coated the courts with judges that will dish out over-the-top rulings.
It’s time conservatives use what’s their power to right some wrongs.
wryteacher on March 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Aye. Fred Thompson for President!
unamused on March 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM
If Hillary thinks she’s JFK, then I think that I’m Helen of Troy. “Smart and charismatic” – AP appropriateley refers to her as the Glacier. And, she’ll never melt, try as she may to fool us all.
Thompson/Giuliani sounds angelical and the libs can start to wet their panties already.
This man is serious and he’s got the bug. Once they have it, it’s over.
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 2:43 PM
AP, we appreciate the fact that you read the left-wing sites so we don’t have to, I mean really, we appreciate it. Thank you. But maybe a little down time might do you some good.
billy on March 11, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Actually, that’s two factors. His “celebrity” gives Thompson an immediate advantage, given he has a built-in fan base from his TV and movie rolls…and the “deep dismay” that conservatives have with the current line-up of candidates; this will bring all those like myself who only half-heartedly now support, say, Giuliani…Thompson is a candidate that die-hard conservatives can fully support.
As many here know, I am a gay conservative…and I agree with Fred here too…He’s saying that he doesn’t think anyone should have “special” rights…not even meaning marriage. This may even refer to “hate crime” laws…which I am also against. You shouldn’t punish people for what they are thinking when committing a crime…just punish the crime.
I truly think Thompson could get the Republican nomination if he runs. He doesn’t appear to have any enemies in the party, he’s a true conservative, and he has garnered respect on the other side of the aisle.
Run, Fred, run! America needs you…
JetBoy on March 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM
If gays are given protected status as are minorities and women then they have special rights such as quotas as well as the difficulties involved in firing them. If they are doing a poor job and an employer let’s them go, all they have to do is say you are firing me because I am gay and they win. Although I guess this is already happening.
Rose on March 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM
The warrantless wiretap program that Bush has since caved on and handed over to FISA? The military tribunals that were ruled unconstitutional in Hamdan? The administration’s initial stance on Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which it’s also since caved on)? The habeas corpus provisions of the military tribunals act passed this summer, which were championed by Bush and will probably be struck down as unconstitutional? The story from two days ago about the FBI issuing unauthorized national security letters?
Allahpundit on March 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Wouldn’t it be “special” if another population cluster of consenting adults were granted a special “right” to marry?
Say, brother & sister. Sister & sister. Brother & brother.
Three-of-a-kind. Full house, etc.
Stephen M on March 11, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Right, but gays (or most gays) would say they don’t want special rights. They want the same rights as straights.
Allahpundit on March 11, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Yeah, Bush caves on a lot of things. Cavemen are primitive creatures.
Perchant on March 11, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yes, but not many people who are going to be voting in the Republican primary are going to be saying that.
frankj on March 11, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Well then, let’s allow adult female school teachers to marry their own adult children. So long as they are not actually enrolled in Mom’s classroom.
Stephen M on March 11, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Giuliani and Thompson would be a strong ticket. But would either one take second position? Thompson would assure a pure conservative voice.
Rose on March 11, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Are you saying that these “same rights” mean gays want marriage? Because most gays on the conservative side don’t even want legalized gay marriage. Only equal treatment under the law. Recognized “Civil Unions” are fine…it’s all a matter of getting the same benefits that monogamous straight couples get…shared health benefits, tax forms, etc.
And I believe Thompson was soley reffering, in his quick statement there, to not believing in “special”, but “equal”, rights.
JetBoy on March 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM
These are grand words JetBoy, and so true!
AP, I agree with all your examples. You’re also right that it all doesn’t matter, including the “pardon Libby now” – the far and center-left will never vote for him/republican anyway, and the Zel Millers will not decide the primaries.
He will be formidable in the general election.
Rose, for the good of the country, and as Bernard Lewis says “these times are as important as the fall of Rome and the discovery of America”, I sure hope that either man would take the 2nd spot or an important offer as secretary. Those things work themselves out in time.
For now, the prospect of Mr. Thompson running makes me very happy. Not good news for Mr. McCain. He will be gracious in the process because, in spite of some misgivings on our part, he is foremost an American, a great one!
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I really don’t think you can tie a potential Libby pardon to those “scandals”, nor do I think Thompson should shy away from saying he’d pardon Libby just because it might be politically expedient.
There are plenty of reasonable minds, Thompson’s included, that don’t think the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, jury verdict to the contrary notwithstanding. There are plenty more reasonable minds that think Fitzgerald went on a fishing expedition and strayed far from its original purpose. And only a moonbat who buy’s the whole “outed covert spy for political revenge” theory could believe that true justice was done where Libby faces jail time while Joe Wilson stands to cash in on more book and movie deals.
thirteen28 on March 11, 2007 at 3:25 PM
“President Fred”…just rolls off the tongue, don’t it?
FDT 2K8!!!
fusionaddict on March 11, 2007 at 3:27 PM
The warrantless wiretap program that Bush has since caved on and handed over to FISA? The military tribunals that were ruled unconstitutional in Hamdan? The administration’s
Do you really believe all this?
Habeus Corpus aplies to everyone in the world?
The vague stories about the FBI?
Hamdan? The SCOTUS ruled and the pres. sought legislation to comply with the ruling and got it. How does this conform with the MSM meme of an out-of-control-executive?
billy on March 11, 2007 at 3:28 PM
One of my all time classic lines!
I like Thompson and I also like his “no nonsense/non politico speak” answers and approach to todays problems.
Do you know what I took away from the interview with Mr. Wallace?
“Let’s win the war and secure the border!”
Thompson/Hunter on the ticket with Giuliani, Romney, and Tancredo in the cabinet….
Let Mz. “Pant Suit” and Mr. “BO” fight against that …..
PinkyBigglesworth on March 11, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Thanks, If he runs he would be the only candidate (so far) that I could support.
Other than that I would just consider any Republican candidate from the current field as a means to vote against the Dems.
roydee43 on March 11, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Fred Dalton Thompson – sounds very presidential.
billy, the point is not what I or others here might believe, but how the Bush Admin. has waffled, backtracked, by their own, election results or court decisions…
It all is small compared with how big it would be for FDT to run, for many reasons, above all to lead the WoT, protect our security, scare the daylights out of the enemies, beat the Libs/Socialism, communicate well, be steady, protect America and its role in the word; secondarily, thoroughly annoy the far left into what will become TDS, the U.N. and all our ‘friends’ in the world.
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 3:36 PM
He’s the only Republican running that’s actually a real conservative. That probably means he won’t win but, unlike any other member of the two party system, I’d like to see him as President.
Benaiah on March 11, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Correction “in the world”, of course, not “in the word” :(
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Ace.
Stephen M on March 11, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Oh my god.
Why is this man not president yet?
Whats ironic is – hes the only ACTOR in the whole bunch, but hes the most REAL! Hes not trying to test the goddamn waters with crazy iraq policies to boost his popularity, he knows what he thinks, and he knows its the right thing to do.
The man basically agrees with me on everything but gay marriage (im for civil unions), but I dig the state by state approach. I dig the judges shouldnt do social policy approach.
This dude would win the gop primary by a landslide. And then hed go on to win the general with reagan numbers.
triple on March 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Okay. Let’s see how successful President Thompson is when 2 or 3 years into his term, conservatives start repeating the MSM’s criticism of him.
billy on March 11, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Actually I would argue that its smart of Fred not to have jumped in so soon. The media has already started tearing into the candidates and the public sees this and is dissasitfied with the current crop and waiting for someone to jump in and liven things up.
Jimmy Carter won in 1976 not because he was a great guy but simply because he was a fresh face and people were tired of the same old faces running over and over again.
William Amos on March 11, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Best candidate I’ve seen in years. Since the last actor actually.
Griz on March 11, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Oh, he is sooooo in!
TBinSTL on March 11, 2007 at 4:17 PM
That’s how they characterize it. But they don’t consider it a “special right” for their classification to be subject to strict scrutiny like race. I do. See, for example, the romer case.
Patterico on March 11, 2007 at 4:19 PM
That’s a tortured understanding of a “right,” though. By that logic, blacks being allowed to vote is a “special right.” They have a special status under the Equal Protection Clause, but that status is only a means to the end of equal rights.
Allahpundit on March 11, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Fred, Fred, he’s our man, if He can’t do it Nobody can He is a true conservative and not everybody will like all his views but, who cares, he isn’t a liberal trashing our country every chance they can.
bones47 on March 11, 2007 at 4:30 PM
FDT/Newt = party time. (I am entitled to fantasize)
infidel on March 11, 2007 at 4:51 PM
We got lucky with one actor but I wouldn’t want to go to that well too often.
He has been accepted into the rat’s nest. He gets along with them, they work together. He would think that he can trust and work with them as President. It would be Bush III.
We need a President who will beat the liberals to a bloody pulp. This guy was on the same movie set as Alec Baldwin and Baldwin came out of it unscathed.
Perchant on March 11, 2007 at 4:53 PM
YYYYEAH!!!!
Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 4:58 PM
That is what civil unions give them. Gay marriage is a issue of how marriage is defined not civil rights. Gays are not, nor ever will be deemed a suspect class unless we get 9 Stephens’ on SCOTUS. Simple. The facts that Thompson disagrees with gay rights is irrelevant. He defers to the states on gay marriage anyway. The hissy fit comes because he recognizes that gays use the courts as their organ to change our traditions to their own. Darn rabble amending their states constitutions.
Exit question: How negative are you Allah? Fred Thompson looks like the second coming of the gipper, and you pound the points that matter most nutroots?
Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Well, I finally found my guy. This Thompson fellow better run or our country’s center is going to move leftward again.
If the Pachyderms run a guy who agrees with the Asses on any number of key issues (Abortion, Iraq, Taxes, etc), whether he wins or not, the moonbats will declare victory on that particular debate, get buy in from the MSM, Academia, and Hollywood – and our nation moves one more tick to the left.
If Thompson gets the nomination and loses, we still have our platform (Soul) intact.
God, I hope he runs.
moc23 on March 11, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Thompson was originally a prosecutor and active in politics before he became an actor:
From wikipedia:
rokemronnie on March 11, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Semantically speaking, you’re correct. In the real world, you’re not. A homosexual who can sue his employer for sex preference discrimination has extra rights above, say, a fat guy who can’t sue his employer for weight discrimination.
Patterico on March 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM
RE: Patterico
So what do you think the current wave of civil judgements against race based preferences will have on “gay rights”? Will judges be less inclined to entertain such cases when preferential treatment for actual suspect classes are routinely rejected by the public and fellow judges?
Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 5:50 PM
“If Thompson gets the nomination and loses, we still have our platform (Soul) intact.
God, I hope he runs.
moc23 on March 11, 2007 at 5:30 PM”
Exactly and well said but he can win. It will take grassroots support and a lot of hard work from his supporters but he can win.
Buzzy on March 11, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I agree and I am willing to work for his campaign.
Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Thompson & Gingrich – though I doubt Gingrich would take VP
Both are very articulate (oh no, I said the forbidden word)
Neither hedges on their comments. Thompson has great stage appeal and seems very likeable, as long as no skeletons jump out of the closet.
I’d strongly support this team as I’m sure many others will.
gunter on March 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Thompson is officially my candidate.
brazilnut on March 11, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I never had a problem with Thompson but I don’t see why anything thinks he has a rat’s a** chance to be nominated or to win.
Labamigo on March 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Rose is no doubt correct. Once a group is “protected” then the next stage is quotas. Of course they’re not called that, but that’s what they are. Some interesing questions emerge.
I can look at someone and can tell if they’re black, or if they’re in a wheelchair, or if they’re a woman. But how can I tell if they’re gay? They’ll have to “come out” won’t they? And not just people looking for jobs, but ALL CURRENT EMPLOYEES AS WELL. How can, for example, GM certify to the government that they don’t discriminate against gays unless they can certify to the government what percentage of their work force is gay?
I can see this:
“I’m responding to the ad for a receptionist.”
“Are you gay?”
“Well, no.”
“I’m sorry, this position is for a gay person.”
“Oh, well then, I’m gay.”
“Prove it.”
Labamigo on March 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Having watched and listened to Thompson over the years as both a senator and actor, I almost did cartwheels when he announced, on The Mark Levin Show last week, that he was exploring the possibility of running.
Thompson is gravitas at its highest.
I hope he runs.
pocomoco on March 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Patterico on March 11, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Allahpundit on March 11, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Labamigo on March 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Hasn’t this gotten a little ridiculous?
Why in the hell should candidates for national office be forced, or choose, to address all of the ins & outs of the legal status of homosexuals?
How important is it to Americans as a whole?
How important is to gay Americans?
These issues aren’t all that important, compared to tax policy, or national defence, or gov’t regulation.
They are smoke screens to divert public opinion from real issues.
billy on March 11, 2007 at 7:09 PM
With the gang that’s running, on both sides, what can he have done that would shock? Killed someone? Just being dramatic – but, seriously, I’m losing the shock emotion. And to think that drinking nearly lost the election for #43 in 2000…
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Just ask Billy Mahre……..
PinkyBigglesworth on March 11, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I’m interested to know, if its pre-programmed into our heads to like actors running for President, or if we actually like his positions. I think he’ll go the same way Obama will.
amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I do need to agree with Billy on something. To most of America, gay marriage is not the number 1 issue. I think for the guy with 2 kids, working 60 hours a week, paying a mortgage, trying to pay the bills, he may have other priorities. Like taxes, and if some terrorist is going to kill his family. Whether homosexuals get married, kinda low on his list of priorities on a Monday morning.
amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 7:19 PM
“This situation is going to get our of control. It’s going to get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live throught it.”
-Fred Thompson
The Hunt for Red October
Chris L. on March 11, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Better yet, Thompson/Steele. You heard it here first.
BacaDog on March 11, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Oohh…BacaDog with Thompson/Steele…I like it, but it does seem better to balance out the ticket with more of a Giuliani…so it’s not too right wing…
And even though it seems lately that so many threads here at HotAir turn into an anti-gay tirade…even when it’s a bit OT…
Fat people sue over weight discrimination all the time…
Doesn’t matter if it’s weight, gay, sex, or anything else…if the system is abused, then it’s wrong. You can’t throw a blanket over it though…
JetBoy on March 11, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Damn Damn Damn! A full afternoon of spring yard work and I miss the red meat!
Fred. Run, Fred, run!
Thompson/Leonidas 08
Limerick on March 11, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I really don’t think it’s meant to be anti-gay as much as we’re trying to understand what he meant by special rights. But there are protected classes of people and I think this has caused ill will and also has made it difficult in some cases to get rid of under performing employees.
Rose on March 11, 2007 at 8:08 PM
And as we all know every single FISA judge has said that Bush was within his legal right. Just because he caved doesn’t mean he wasn’t right. Everyone agrees. Allah, you’d actually make a pretty decent democrat. You’re not even a decent RINO. Tell me, why do you jump on each and every democrat talking point? I believe Billy and now I have completely destroyed your assertions.
Capitalist Infidel on March 11, 2007 at 8:17 PM
If it is truly too late in the election cycle for Fred (as some of you have predicted), candidates should make a note that he would make a splendid vice-presidential choice.
On the lighter side,
The caricature was almost predictable. On the other hand, BHO DOES resemble JFK in the sense that both are/were all fluff and no stuff.
CyberCipher on March 11, 2007 at 8:20 PM
reat combo to Hill/bombo manbones47 on March 11, 2007 at 8:21 PM
amerpundit, acting is really not the biggest part of this man’s life. To compare him to Obama is really not fair.
Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 9:21 PM
The gay thing has run its course
Fred will run and he will easily win the nomination and it will NOT take and enormous amount of funds. He doesen’t believe in huge campaign staffs all he needs is some face time and signs and he’s off to the races. He was supposed tpo easily lose his senate race, wiped his boots metaphorically on his opponents issues.
Gingrich is a good man but cannot be trusted by his wives same for Gulliani and McCains whose post marital episodes are legendary.
EricPWJohnson on March 11, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Eric, I hope you’re right.
Rose on March 11, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Entelechy,
Sorry, what I meant by that was being the second of two party candidate, ie Hillary and Obama will be the Democrat’s top two candidates. I think this guy and one of the “RINO”s will be the top 2 candidates.
amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I hope he runs. I can’t think of a better candidate outside of JC Watts. Still I hope JC ends up to be VP.
Tim Burton on March 11, 2007 at 11:31 PM
OOOH! Now You are talking!
That ought to be more than enough. The latter half is enough for me.
I’ve thought that Fred would make a great President since I first heard him on the Senate floor.
He DID disappoint me on the BJC impeachment and the Senate Comittee investigating Whitewater, but given his positives on most other stuff, I’m willing to forgive him on those.
And I’d love to see a President who can and will talk like a ‘Dutch Uncle’ when necessary and not suffer fools easily. And that’s Fred Thompson in spades*.
*No racist meanings intended in any of the above expressions. Any similarity between real persons or real events is purely coincidental. Offer void in The Netherlands. See website for details.
LegendHasIt on March 11, 2007 at 11:55 PM
amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Thanks for the clarification amerpundit. You had me worried there :) Btw, I think Mrs. Clinton will pick Mr. Richardson as VP. The Blacks will vote for her in any event. With the latter she’ll get some Catholics, many Latinos, possibly New Mexico, he’s got energy and foreing policy experiences, etc.
Tim Burton, your idea is good. I like JC Watts. FDT in any combination as first or second man on the ticket sounds really good. The man will be in. Otherwise he wouldn’t even think about appearing and yakking about it.
Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM
got my vote if he runs.. heck… may even reregister as Republican so I could vote for him in the primary….
Romeo13 on March 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM
For all the Fred for President supporters here:
draftfredthompson.com is already up and running.
icelandicfarmer on March 12, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I’d still rather see Thompson/Watts
Tim Burton on March 12, 2007 at 12:21 AM
They already DO have the same rights regarding marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
There’s been absolutely no attempt to take marriage away from gays.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I loved what I heard! Fred for President! (get Mitt or Rudy on as VP… to get those Northern, “independent” and socially liberal voters)
Jen the Neocon on March 12, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Why would a man choose a running mate who disagrees with almost every issue. Believing that it’s going to win votes from the other side doesn’t make any sense, because it would lose just as many votes from the conservative side.
I agree with the Thompson/Steele choice, for now.
Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 1:14 AM
True, Gregor…I’d like to see FDT choose Santorum or Allen as a running mate, but he’s gotta run!
Jen the Neocon on March 12, 2007 at 2:02 AM
With an annual “federal” budget at stake that approaches $3,000,000,000,000, it’s now never too early to get in the game. Without giving away too much about my personal finances, I’ll say that the federal budget is approximately 30,000,000 times my annual salary. Moreover, setting law and morality aside just for a moment, it’s available to be spent for any purpose, if you can get away it. The peril of all-purpose, unlimited “federal” government is that the fight over that huge pile of cash intensifies noticeably with each passing decade. That Fred Thompson seems late, as he ponders Presidential candidacy almost twenty months before the election, is the latest sign of a decay in the American regime that no one has yet had the virtue and fortune to be able to reverse.
Kralizec on March 12, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Did anyone even notice the second half of Allahpundit’s sentence? You may be a fine Christian if you’ve got your panties in a wad because the “homosexualists” are getting uppity. However, you’re not a very good American conservative–or much of a political thinker of any kind–if you don’t see the value of federalism or if federalism isn’t among the first things that come into your head when an issue is raised by a candidate for an American “federal” office. American constitutional government will survive whether gays marry or not, but it’s already stricken by the decline of federalism. I wonder if even God knows what may take its place.
Kralizec on March 12, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Most of what Fred says , I like…I`d vote for him for president over anyone out there today in the race. He seems like a good ole boy. All the other I won`t trust as far as I can throw them.
Lou on March 12, 2007 at 5:16 AM
I actually have had the great fortune to meet and to visit with Fred Thompson over lunch, back in the late ‘90s. Prior to that meeting, I thought he might be presidential material. After our visit, I was certain of it. Should he decide to run, I’ll pull out every stop I’ve got.
That said, given he, physically, is a bear of a man and I’m only 5’2″, it’s a good thing we were seated during our visit, otherwise my conversation would have been with the tip of his tie. ;->,
Aunt B on March 12, 2007 at 7:29 AM
Fred is going to serve one purpose in the beginning. He ‘s setting the example of what a real conservative agenda looks like. Hopefully this will push Rudy, McCain, and Mitt to start espousing some hard core conservative values.
If that doesn’t work then he may decide to throw his hat in.
csdeven on March 12, 2007 at 7:40 AM
Fred, please, for the love of the Christian God and the salvation of the nation and faith……
RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please………..
P. James Moriarty on March 12, 2007 at 7:49 AM
OMG, this race just got teh rawk. I can’t wait for ’08. The primary is going to kick.
Run Fred Run. Even if you’re behind the eight-ball, you will pwn the debates, and I seriously don’t think funding will be that much of an issue in terms of being a controlling force in the primaries. He’s at least a solid candidate for the Veep slot for either Romney or Rudy.
Take that, Rudy McRomney Bolsheviks. Now you have a clean candidate with enough name-recognition to throw your support to.
Giuliani, Romney, Hunter, Brownback, Thompson. That’s a slate, baby, that’s a slate. W00t.
spmat on March 12, 2007 at 8:12 AM
When it comes to marriage, gays do have the same rights as straights.
I can marry one consenting woman who’s of legal age and isn’t a family member, and the same goes for, say, Tom Cruise.
saint kansas on March 12, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Is Allahpundit a Republican? It doesn’t sound like it from this post about not pardoning Libby.
Of course the Democrats won’t like that we pardon him. But that is a point in its favor.
freakagriep on March 12, 2007 at 8:20 AM
Two proofs are stated by you.
One is that if you post enought, you finally break a little from the strain and end up saying some things you can’t really believe.
The second is if the left says something often enough, others will actually believe it.
Of the thousands of wire taps, a few were found to be suspect. Caving in because of political pressure of the upcoming “season” is different from caving in because they were illegal (“Changing the policy on his own initiative lets Bush bank some goodwill on the eve of the G8 with North Korea and Iran on the table” as you state). And dump the probably’s, they may look good in your argument, but they are not reality (you would have had a dozen less words and been more accurate). So we have, after seveal years, a few instances of “the GOP has had enough scandals lately”. As if the other have not had theirs. Maybe the words perceived scandals would have been better.
right2bright on March 12, 2007 at 8:33 AM
Don’t know what the average tenure of a federal judge is, but I find this statement odd in that since 1980 we have had 18 years of R presidents to 8 years of Dems. Somehow it doesn’t compute.
honora on March 12, 2007 at 8:52 AM
I like Law and Order as much as the next person, but this giddiness over Thompson strikes me as a little desperate. Were he 5’7″ and not in possession of that magnificent voice and demeanor, I doubt if he would be so appealing. Reminds me a bit of the Obama-hysteria.
There’s a term for this in psychology that I can’t quite remember–transference maybe?
honora on March 12, 2007 at 9:09 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
The libs have blocked, fought tooth and nail, to every appointment that even utters the word conservative. Initates campains to seek and destroy appointments, fillibusters at a drop of a hat if one mentions abortion, state rights, opposed to a “living document”, or any other of their many litmus tests. How many appointments were stalled for Clinton? How many fillibuster or threats of same? The conservatives, mistakenly, have not taken the same tact. 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.
Some people confuse Republican with conservative judicial beliefs. The two are not the same. Most look at a candidates social and political agenda, few ever ask or care what judicial appointments they would make. We can’t forget the mother of all fights, Bork. The beginning of the lefts campain to impugn appointments. Maybe the most qualified person to come before the Senate in decades, perhaps ever, and torn personally apart.
right2bright on March 12, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »