Anyone else out there also think Fred Thompson would be a good President?

I haven't decided yet on who I'm going to vote. Thompson does have my attention. The voting record in his past has to be considered. However, some thought should be considered on his change of philosophies of today also.

With the items he has voted for in the past to move along the senate that has hurt him I say this:
People need to look at the entire context of the bills that he has voted for. Hardly any of these are single issued. That's not advertised to very many when the mudslinging goes on with candidates...

He's going to be in my town tomorrow at Centennial Park. If I didn't have concrete plans, I sure would go. If there's anything that's new said, I'll let you guys/gals know.
 
I don't think any of us are going to see our "dream candidate"(whom ever that may be) elected to the presidency.
Click to expand...

Agree, with our media and corporate America running the show the idea of
a president for the people is remote.
 
Fred Thompson has the aura of leadership, and the positions that most conservatives can identify with. I think he is head and shoulders over the other Republican candidates. He supports the war on terrorism, believes immigration policy must start with securing the borders, supports less taxation and smaller government, and believes in the principles of the U.S. Constitution. He is a strong 2nd amendment supporter; do not be fooled by those who pick a few minor issues where he supported a bill that included some anti-gun provisions. But most of all, I like that he is a straight talker; he does not try to cover both sides of an issue so that no one is offended. He states his position and seems to stick to it. I like Mike Huckabee, but he does not have the strong presence of Fred Thompson. I can see him on the platform facing Hilary or Barack and more than holding his own. He probably could just scowl at her, then change to a smile and shake his head and say "There she goes again" and win over half the electorate right there.
 
I live in Florida, where it might actually matter.
Click to expand...

It might matter a whole lot! :D It has in the past, anyway.

I do think that the conservative base of the Republican party will seriously and very carefully consider Thompson.
 
If it were Fred instead of Bush in 2000 and 2004 it would have been another Reagan landslide victory. Kerry and Gore wouldn't have stood a chance. I see the same if it's him against Shrillary!

I really hope that it comes down to that. It's about our only chance of keeping this country from becoming a totally social/fascist state. He would make dogmeat out of either the Hildabeast or Obama.

DS
 
Like someone else said, Fred Thompson is a great choice for those who like the way things are going under the current administration, but wish the President had a little more bass in his voice.
 
History

We have had very few presidents that went from Congress straight to the White House. Many were governors. That may eliminate Thompson, but thank God Clinton and Obama are out of luck as well.
 
The last senator to make it to the White House from the Senate floor was Kennedy in 1961. Since then, the record has been 70-odd running to zero elected.
 
The last senator to make it to the White House from the Senate floor was Kennedy in 1961. Since then, the record has been 70-odd running to zero elected.
Click to expand...
OK, so using that as the standard then McCain, Clinton, and Obama are out....not bad, I can live with that part, but it has Romney as probable winner. :barf: Why do we have to have SO MANY HORRIBLE CANDIDATES this time around?!?
 
Fred talks a good game but unfortunately does not back up his bravado with an impressive record. It's no longer acceptable to give candidates "free passes". They work for us and giving politicians free reign and free passes cheapens our founding values.
 
You have that post on your clipboard for easy cut and paste Unreg? LOL
The hate Bush thing is pretty thin by now.

Any Republican is going to get the 'Bush Clone' sticker slapped on them. Gotta keep the hate flowing right. Running on who hates the hardest is pretty shallow. You'd think the Dems would learn the perils of betting on someone else not doing well rather then promoting their own attributes by now. That's got then and the enemy saying the SAME THING.

Got attributes?:p

Got anything else to add? How about your guy. Tell us about their good points and strengths.
 
I don't think Paul would get the Bush clone stigma, neither probably would Romney. Thompson on the other hand has publicly embraced the Bush clone stigma. Just my observations.
 
......R.I.N.O.s don't count.:p

I should have qualified that with any Republican that the Dems recognize as a potent contender. No need to attack unless a threat is perceived right.
 
Bruxley said:
The hate Bush thing is pretty thin by now.

Any Republican is going to get the 'Bush Clone' sticker slapped on them. Gotta keep the hate flowing right. Running on who hates the hardest is pretty shallow. You'd think the Dems would learn the perils of betting on someone else not doing well rather then promoting their own attributes by now. That's got then and the enemy saying the SAME THING.
Click to expand...

in all fairness Mr. Bruxley, theres a big difference between hating the man and hating his policies. i for one dont hate bush at all. i think he is a decent man with honorable intentions, but i think his policies are leading this country down a very dangerous path (or more like continuing down that path). i do agree that the leading dems pretty much campaign on hate, just wanted to point out the differences between those types, and those with legitimate disagreements.

i would also disagree about all republicans getting the bush clone sticker. i dont think romney, giulliani, or paul will. in romney and giulliani's case, that is not necessarily a good thing for the country, imo.
 
If you can remember the Reagan era and liked it ... I'd say Fred is a slightly more charming version of Reagan.

A continuation of Bush? LOL! Just because he is not going to turn tail and flee from Iraq (whether or not that would be the smartest thing to do) they differ in every other way. Thompson is a smooth and cool communicator. Whatever else he is or is not, Bush is NOT a good communicator.

And if on nothing else, look at the two of them on gun control (something we're all about around here). Bush has done little for us except be neutral, and he promised to sign the AWB if it appeared on his desk. He avoided doing many other things he could have just by executive order (like ordering the Nat'l Park service to honor state CCW).

Thompson did a photo op in a gunshop with a big Glock poster above his head. He states he's clearly a supporter of the second amendment (though admittedly I just looked over his web page, and couldn't find specific information about Fred and "AWB's")

There are months to go and plenty of time for fred to do something stupid, like shriek like a girl in front of the cameras or get caught in a tryst with some woman on a boat, or even just reveal himself with true colors I don't currently know about.

But as it stands now for the first time in years I just MIGHT be able to vote for someone I believe in, rather than the lesser of two evils.
 
Thompson seems ok to me, (i.e., honest, decent man).

Pro-gun also. Since I'm a one issue voter, I guess it's Thompson for me.
 
Garand Illusion,

I appreciate your comments. Can you give me a few specific examples of what Thompson would do for the 2nd Amendment? What gun laws is he willing to roll back?

Also, on other major issues, how is he different than Bush?

I am not talking about style issues, like ability to communicate. But on things like welfare, civil rights, immigration, etc, how is he actually different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top