Why Fred Thompson

[stephanie]

Go Fred Go.:cheers2:

By J.B. Williams
Monday, September 17, 2007

Nobody is more surprised to see former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in the 2008 race for the White House than Fred Thompson himself. At age 64, with a successful acting career, a stable financial future, a second chance at family life, a bright beautiful young wife and two small children, running for President of the United States was likely not on his list of things to do.


That’s before the conservative core of the Republican Party drafted him. Fed up with out of control federal spending, deteriorating individual liberties, a lack-luster national defense and the growing tolerance for leftist notions exhibited by the current crop of “moderates” busy running their GOP into the ground, conservatives passed on all RNC panderers and drafted their own presidential candidate.


Why Fred Thompson?

I could run down the list of conservative votes that make up his two term senate career, but others have already done that. I could talk about his down home southern charm, his good ole boy nature, his face and name recognition as a result of a life filled with personal accomplishments or even talk about those red pickup truck campaign stops reminiscent of much simpler days. But you already know these things.


Unlike all other candidates, it’s hard to find someone with anything bad to say about Thompson, someone besides his political challengers of course. In a fever to find trash on Thompson somewhere, the Democrat war room tracked down every girl he ever dated between his two marriages, looking for dirt. When every woman who ever knew Thompson had only praise for what a kind, gentle natured southern gentleman he really is, Democrats knew they had a real problem on their hands. Even his ex’s still like him? Never seen that before…


All of these reasons are true and valid. They all mean something. But there is an even bigger reason why Fred Thompson is the likely winner in 2008, a reason few political analysts can comprehend.


On the campaign trail this week, Thompson was asked why he was not participating in the Values Voter debate in Fort Lauderdale on Monday. In typical Thompson form, he responded, "Debates are important, but let's don't let the tail wag the dog here. Standing up there 10 in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for someone to throw you the next fish is not necessarily the best way to impart your information to the American people," Thompson said. "I'm not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don't want to do it all the time."

And that’s why Fred Thompson could be the right man with the right stuff for 2008!
Atop the list of many disappointments in our federal government today is the clear message that nobody in Washington DC has the least bit of common sense or honesty about them. Okay, let’s say a few do, but so few that they aren’t worth counting. Modern politicians are just career politicians. They aren’t the pillars of our communities anymore and I don’t care which political party you’re trying to blindly defend.

Washington is full of career liars and every American knows it. Now, the average American voter can not always detect a lie when it’s told by a really good liar and let’s face it, our nation’s best liars aren’t reading scripts in Hollywood, our village idiots are. Our best liars are reading campaign cue cards in Washington DC.

The people may not always catch the lie as it’s told by the best liars in the business. But Americans inherently know the truth when they see it or hear it and that’s what they seem to like about Fred Thompson.

There isn’t a single American who wouldn’t describe modern campaign debates the same way Fred did, or feel about them just as he does, as a result. But what politician has the nerve to say it out loud for God and the whole world to hear? Besides Thompson I mean… I was starting to wonder if I was the only American who noticed what a ridiculous scam the alphabet network debates had become.


What other truths will the average American voter connect with?

Read the rest at..
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/williams091707.htm

[GW in Ohio]

stephanie: I find it a fascinating process to watch Republicans talking themselves into support for one of their candidates.

Congratulations to you on finding someone you can get behind.

And ol' Fred has a big behind to get behind.

(Sorry, I had to say something snotty or my fellow liberals wouldn't invite me to the next quiche and white wine party.)

[stephanie]

stephanie: I find it a fascinating process to watch Republicans talking themselves into support for one of their candidates.

Congratulations to you on finding someone you can get behind.

And ol' Fred has a big behind to get behind.

(Sorry, I had to say something snotty or my fellow liberals wouldn't invite me to the next quiche and white wine party.)

:laugh2:

I like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter...:cheers2:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I like Fred too, he has my vote.
2. I also Like Your New Avatar.
3. Fantastic!:clap:

Regrads,
SirJamesofTexas

[Gunny]

stephanie: I find it a fascinating process to watch Republicans talking themselves into support for one of their candidates.

Congratulations to you on finding someone you can get behind.

And ol' Fred has a big behind to get behind.

(Sorry, I had to say something snotty or my fellow liberals wouldn't invite me to the next quiche and white wine party.)

As opposed to you dems just blindly following along behind the moron with a "D" behind his/her name?

[Joe Steel]

He's tall. And he's an actor. And speaks well.

Republicans like that in a candidate.

It helps them suspend disbelief...those of them who are smart enough to see through the deceptions, misrepresentations and deceit.

Which isn't many.

The rest of them just like him because they confuse him with the characters he's played.

Just like Reagan.

He's not good at public policy but he looks good.

[jimnyc]

those of them who are smart enough to see through the deceptions, misrepresentations and deceit.

Please link us to examples of his deceptions, misrepresentations and deceit. Oh, and BTW jo jo, you do realize that deception and deceit would be the same thing, no? Hell, the actual definition even listed for deception is "the use of deceit". So did you purposely try to lengthen your list with "deceit" or are you just not bright enough to realize it's the same thing?

I'll wait for your links too...

[Abbey Marie]

He's tall. And he's an actor. And speaks well.

Republicans like that in a candidate.

It helps them suspend disbelief...those of them who are smart enough to see through the deceptions, misrepresentations and deceit.

Which isn't many.

The rest of them just like him because they confuse him with the characters he's played.

Just like Reagan.

He's not good at public policy but he looks good.


Balding Fred looks good? I think you are confusing him with your guy, Pretty Boy Edwards. Or maybe with "handsome" Bill Clinton. The Dems are the party of slick superficiality. Or is GWB now considered a smooth talker? :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Balding Fred looks good? I think you are confusing him with your guy, Pretty Boy Edwards. Or maybe with "handsome" Bill Clinton. The Dems are the party of slick superficiality. Or is GWB now considered a smooth talker? :laugh2:I think President Bush is a handsome man, and pictures in his youth, he looked like a real cutie pie to me? Yes he can't talk well, but speaking of looks only...he is handsome.

[Abbey Marie]

I think President Bush is a handsome man, and pictures in his youth, he looked like a real cutie pie to me? Yes he can't talk well, but speaking of looks only...he is handsome.

You may find him handsome, but there are just about daily attacks on his speaking abilities. No one is accusing himof being smooth, lol. I'm sure I don't have to give you examples. Joe Steel says Republicans like a candidate who speaks well. Do you agree that GWB is an example of how Joe is wrong?

[JohnDoe]

You may find him handsome, but there are just about daily attacks on his speaking abilities. No one is accusing himof being smooth, lol. I'm sure I don't have to give you examples. Joe Steel says Republicans like a candidate who speaks well. Do you agree that GWB is an example of how Joe is wrong?
Joe is most certainly wrong with GWB, though I do feel that Cheney's talking ability and strength compensated for what GWB was lacking.... I know I felt that way back in 2000.... I have changed my mind on Cheney, but at the time, I felt that he was a great asset for GWB.

jd

[Abbey Marie]

Joe is most certainly wrong with GWB, though I do feel that Cheney's talking ability and strength compensated for what GWB was lacking.... I know I felt that way back in 2000.... I have changed my mind on Cheney, but at the time, I felt that he was a great asset for GWB.

jd

I don't agree that Cheney helped to compensate for GWB's lack of smoothness. As with most veeps, we hardly heard him speak, and I doubt Bush was elected and re-elected because people liked Cheney's speaking style. Behind the scenes may be a different story, but Joe was talking image. Specifically how the man talks.

So, the point remains that it is the Dems who tend to vote based on looks, smooth talking, and other superficialities. I don't think you are going to argue that point by bringing up GWB. Or Giuliani, lol. Now if you had mentioned Romney, you might have something.

[JohnDoe]

I don't agree that Cheney helped to compensate for GWB's lack of smoothness. As with most veeps, we hardly heard him speak, and I doubt Bush was elected and re-elected because people liked Cheney's speaking style. Behind the scenes may be a different story, but Joe was talking image. Specifically how the man talks.

So, the point remains that it is the Dems who tend to vote based on looks, smooth talking, and other superficialities. I don't think you are going to argue that point by bringing up GWB. Or Giuliani, lol. Now if you had mentioned Romney, you might have something.


hands down, Romney is the most handsome person out there... :D He's got Edwards beat, in my humble opinion....and probably most men on this Earth beat! :D

Cheney was out there speaking and I know my husband also felt that he compensated for what Bush was lacking, but yes, you are right, Bush was not a smooth talker or smooth anything!

I don't think Carter or Johnson were anything smooth and worth looking at, so I disagree that Democrats as you imply, pick the handsome superficial one.

And I don't think Nixon was anything smooth either....

In other words I think all of this crap about picking a president that is smooth and good looking from either side is valid.

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.comics.com/editoons/ariail/archive/images/ariail2007091116396.gif

[Joe Steel]

Please link us to examples of his deceptions, misrepresentations and deceit. Oh, and BTW jo jo, you do realize that deception and deceit would be the same thing, no? Hell, the actual definition even listed for deception is "the use of deceit". So did you purposely try to lengthen your list with "deceit" or are you just not bright enough to realize it's the same thing?

I'll wait for your links too...

Of course I know it and you know I know it. You've just got nothing but spin.

Ever wonder why attorney's fill their legal briefs with strings of synonyms? (Frankly, I don't think you and the rest of the wingnuts are smart enough to wonder about that kind of thing but "the benefit of the doubt" and all that...)

It's because some loser who's got nothing but spin is going to try to build his case on finely parsing something someone said.

Get the picture?

[jimnyc]

Of course I know it and you know I know it. You've just got nothing but spin.

Ever wonder why attorney's fill their legal briefs with strings of synonyms? (Frankly, I don't think you and the rest of the wingnuts are smart enough to wonder about that kind of thing but "the benefit of the doubt" and all that...)

It's because some loser who's got nothing but spin is going to try to build his case on finely parsing something someone said.

Get the picture?

Speaking of not being smart enough, where's the links or proof to backup your claims?

[stephanie]

Of course I know it and you know I know it. You've just got nothing but spin.

Ever wonder why attorney's fill their legal briefs with strings of synonyms? (Frankly, I don't think you and the rest of the wingnuts are smart enough to wonder about that kind of thing but "the benefit of the doubt" and all that...)

It's because some loser who's got nothing but spin is going to try to build his case on finely parsing something someone said.

Get the picture?

Are you talking about Hillary...John Edwards??:poke:

[Joe Steel]

Speaking of not being smart enough, where's the links or proof to backup your claims?

Spin this, Dizzy:


FRED THOMPSON'S RED PICKUP TRUCK....Noam Scheiber thinks that before long, everyone will have heard about the phony everyman schtick that Fred Thompson employed during his 1994 Senate campaign:

By the time Fred Thompson decides whether or not to join the presidential fray, you will have heard the story of his red pickup truck at least a dozen times. The truck in question is a 1990 Chevy, which the famed statesman-thespian rented during his maiden Senate campaign in 1994. The idea was that Thompson would dress up in blue jeans and shabby boots and drive himself to campaign events around the state.

...in fact, the red pickup is even phonier than Scheiber and Somerby make it sound.

...

Basically, he just drove the thing the final few hundred feet before each campaign event, and then ditched it for something nicer as soon as he was out of sight of the yokels. Quite a man of the people, no?


Fred Thompson's Red Pickup Truck (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/07/politics/animal/main2772592.shtml)

[jimnyc]

Spin this, Dizzy:

An op-ed piece with no facts to backup their statements? And even if true, this is the "deceit (deception) and misrepresentations you speak of? :laugh2:

I think the American people are probably a little more concerned with his political track record, his stances and his intent if he gets elected.

Maybe his red truck going from town to town was a matter of "rhetorical convenience". :laugh2:

So is this all you bring to the table, jo jo? Surely you can muster up a little more than a red truck to backup your assertions! LOL

[Abbey Marie]

By the time Fred Thompson decides whether or not to join the presidential fray, you will have heard the story of his red pickup truck at least a dozen times.

Well, Joe steel, Fred joined the race last week, and the only time I've heard about his red pickup is... from you!

Next non-issue.

[stephanie]

Here's a couple other NON ISSUES I've seen being talked about...

He's a ladies man.

AND...........he has a much younger wife...:eek:


:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Well, Joe steel, Fred joined the race last week, and the only time I've heard about his red pickup is... from you!

Next non-issue.

Incredible.

I can understand your ignorance. It's the pride you take in it that has me baffled.

[Joe Steel]

Here's a couple other NON ISSUES I've seen being talked about...

He's a ladies man.

AND...........he has a much younger wife...:eek:


:laugh2:

I saw your avatar http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3 and it reminded me of this:

http://images.sportsnetwork.com/misc/supreme_court_clowns.jpg

[musicman]

http://www.comics.com/editoons/ariail/archive/images/ariail2007091116396.gif

You are correct, Hag - it DOES speak for itself. It says, "Hi, there - I am a blatant falsehood!"

Fred Thompson has infuriated traditional cultural/political forces by refusing to allow them to frame the debate or dictate his timing. I can hardly blame them; this only serves to illustrate their increasing irrelevance.

"The train has left" - LMAO! Yeah - it's left SOMEBODY, and it damn sure isn't Fred Thompson!

[stephanie]

You are correct, Hag - it DOES speak for itself. It says, "Hi, there - I am a blatant falsehood!"

Fred Thompson has infuriated traditional cultural/political forces by refusing to allow them to frame the debate or dictate his timing. I can hardly blame them; this only serves to illustrate their increasing irrelevance.

"The train has left" - LMAO! Yeah - it's left SOMEBODY, and it damn sure isn't Fred Thompson!

:2up:

[Abbey Marie]

Incredible.

I can understand your ignorance. It's the pride you take in it that has me baffled.

:laugh2:

[Yurt]

stephanie: I find it a fascinating process to watch Republicans talking themselves into support for one of their candidates.

Congratulations to you on finding someone you can get behind.

And ol' Fred has a big behind to get behind.

(Sorry, I had to say something snotty or my fellow liberals wouldn't invite me to the next quiche and white wine party.)

You misspelled bitch and whine :coffee:

[Yurt]

http://www.comics.com/editoons/ariail/archive/images/ariail2007091116396.gif

See, here is thing, you and the artist don't know anything about trains. Trains can move "backwards" with the caboose in the front. The puffs of smoke? Oh, that is just all the hot from the losers behind Fred trying to catch up with him.

Actually, I do not support anyone yet. But wanted to point out how silly the cartoon is.

[Gaffer]

Fred's getting on board. He's flying to washington while the others poke along on the train. A train full of pig iron.