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

Thompson supports smaller government, and favors leaving to the states what the constitution says is the states responsibility. For example, Bush not only did not do away with the Federal Dept. of Education, he expanded it enormously with the No Child Left Behind legislation. Thompson believes that education is clearly a state, not federal issue. This is just one of many differences between Thompson and Bush. Immigration is another difference. Thompson has repeatedly stated that the first step we must take is to truly secure the borders. This is both an immigration and national security issue to Thompson. Bush has insisted on what he calls "comprehensive immigration reform" and has neglected to vigorously enforce even current legislation to build 750 miles of border fence. I think Bush was a no-brainer choice over crazy Al Gore and lying John Kerry, but Thompson is a real conservative, while not going off the deep end like Ron Paul. Just as Reagan gave Americans a chance to feel proud again and to believe that finally we had a president who would do more than wimper (Jimmy Carter) when America was threatened, I believe Thompson can give hope to Americans who see Hilary and Obama as appeasing, fearful, pacifist socialists who will sell out America to achieve some sort of politically correct accomodation with the rest of the world.
 
Here's my prediction: Hillary will be selected by the Dems, and the Republicans will select Fred Thompson.

Having said that, I figure that Hillary "owes" the looney far-left, and will probably choose either Obama, or perhaps even Al Gore as her running mate. She could also want the "Hispanic" vote, which means that she could pick Richardson.

Thompson seems to be fed up with the way things are in Washington, so he might try to find an "outsider" as a running mate. It wouldn't surprise me if he asked Tommy Franks, or perhaps Bill Bennett. Heck, perhaps even Condoleeza Rice....but doubtful.

While Ronald Reagan surrounded himself with the best advisors he could find, it was Reagan, all by himself, that made his Presidency work. I think that Thompson is capable of doing the same thing.
 
For example, Bush not only did not do away with the Federal Dept. of Education, he expanded it enormously with the No Child Left Behind legislation. Thompson believes that education is clearly a state, not federal issue. This is just one of many differences between Thompson and Bush.
Click to expand...


Vito, you are aware that Fred Thompson voted for No Child Left Behind, aren't you?

My problem with Fred is that his voting record does not match what he is actually saying. He says he is for small government, less welfare, more peronal freedom, etc, but then votes the opposite. He has done this on other issues as well.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Right now, Freddy is in more of a "talking" than "walking" mode. Like I said, he still may reveal some new colors I don't know about. And there are some good examples about what he's about above (bush claims to be for smaller government but either gave that battle up or lost it -- we'll see if fred will hold out any better).

I don't know of any gun laws he is willing to roll back and I'd like to see a guarantee he won't sign an AWB (unfortunately, many people claim to be pro-2nd amendment except for those evil black guns) but in any case he is making it a point to talk guns and has many times spoken of his support of the 2nd amendment. I don't remember Bush really broaching the subject, and when he did it was to promise signing the AWB.

Because Fred is talking directly to the gun owners, if he gets elected he's going to feel more comfortable working for gun rights (if it truly is part of his agenda). Bush didn't speak directly to us in the campaign and so felt no obligation to really back us when in office.

In any case, Fred is a strong communicator. Take a look at his online speech -- it's fantastic.

I AM old enough to remember Reagan, and I think that's a much better comparison. Reagan was also relatively gun neutral, BTW, even supporting the AWB after he was out of office.

If Fred Thompson truly is just getting into the race because he wants to accomplish things politically vs. most candidates who just want power, that also makes him, IMHO, a very fine candidate.

I don't KNOW how much of Fred Thompson is just political blather and how much is real, and no one ever does, but looking at what he's saying and comparing it to his voting history to the extent I have ... I'll take him any day over any of the other top 4 republican contenders.

Now if Tom Tancredo had a chance ... but that's moot. And I might pick Fred anyway.

Now that I've taken this on, maybe you could list point by point how he IS like Bush in negative ways? (and I don't consider wanting to win the war and fix the country we broke negative).

Many bold statements have been made like this in a humorous manner, but I've yet to see any "meat".

Post away:
 
I wonder if people understand what power the President does and doesn't have when I hear about 'rolling back' laws.
 
I wonder if people understand what power the President does and doesn't have when I hear about 'rolling back' laws.
Click to expand...

I think most of us know that. But the president can be a powerful advocate for passing/repealing laws if he wants them, though of course everything has to originate in Congress. I haven't heard Bush advocate for doing anything pro-gun whatsoever.

What a president can do is issue executive orders for issues that are a matter of regulation rather than law.

As I understand it (IANAL) the rule about no weapons in government buildings or the national parks is a government regulation, not a law passed by congress. Congress did pass a law making breaking such regulations a crime, but it's a blanket law and when the rules are changed what someone can be charged for changes. So Bush could have done many positive things by executive order. Also with the ATF and their current rules on imports.
 
I wonder if people understand what power the President does and doesn't have when I hear about 'rolling back' laws.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Bully Pulpit?
Or how about "stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool"?



Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why he voted for No Child Left Behind if he is against it.

Are you saying he was for it before he was against it? You know, kinda like John Kerry on the Iraq War?
 
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why he voted for No Child Left Behind if he is against it.

Are you saying he was for it before he was against it? You know, kinda like John Kerry on the Iraq War?
Click to expand...

This is my understanding of what Thompson's stand on the issues...

He may have supported the NCLB Act to get the ball rolling. Now that it is, it needs to have quite a few tweaks to be most effective. I think Thompson is against leaving it the way it is. Changes are needed to it, but not disbanded. My personal take on it is that the Dept. of Ed. needs a vast overhaul period. But, that's another story.

Similar to the No Child, I think Thompson was for the Iraq war at the beginning. Now, at present time, things have changed drastically and a new, fresh game plan needs to be introduced. What he has in mind specifically, I don't know...
 
So, it really is kind of like John Kerry then? He was for it before he was against it?

Nothing wrong with that. People change their minds on things all the time. But when a Democrat does it, Republicans beat the crap out of them.
 
Your working REAL hard to make up a position.

Remember, Kerry said those words. Those are a quote. Trying to stick a losers quote on a candidate to make HIM look like the first loser and therefore a loser himself is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Why are you working so adamantly against Fred unless you fell he is a potent and vital candidate. You DO feel he is potent and vital right. Is that what your saying? Your point that he is vital and potent is understood, and I agree.
(see I can put words in mouths too.......)
 
I think Fred Thompson will get the nomination, by a landslide. I think over the next few months, you will see every candidate drop out except for Thompson, Giuliani, and maybe Romney and Ron Paul. I am not sure if Thompson can win the general election. Lets hope so, or else we will be stuck with Hillary. But I do not believe he is the true conservative so many here claim he is. He is probably the best of those running, but that isn't saying much.

Many people, myself included, thought Bush was a conservative, until he got elected and we saw what he was actually doing. I don't think we have much choice to go with Thompson, but I think its important for everyone to be vigilant to the fact that he is not really as conservative as he says he is, and he has been known to flip flop on various issues, such as No Child Left Behind.

If he gets elected, conservatives will have a tough job of keeping Fred conservative, and keeping him consistent and honest.

The reason I am discussing No Child Left Behind is because a post earlier in the thread by Vito. Vito said that one of the differences between Bush and Thompson is that Thompson doesn't support legislation like NCLB. I pointed out that Fred Thompson voted for this monstrosity, and if he is now against it, this must be a change in his position since he voted for it before he was against it.
 
I have to admit. No child left behind isn't an issue I'm familiar with. What I understood about it when it was being debated was it presented to schools standards that had to be met in order to show they are actually educating the children going through the schools.

What is going on with that? What is wrong or a monstrosity? Teddy was in on it so I imagine it's got organized labor involvement and they have slowed on excellence and focused on 'gimmie' the last few decades.

What's so messed up with it?
 
The crux of the problem is the federal government is dabbling in affairs that are the business of the individual states. Education is a local issue, and not one the federal government is given reign over by the Constutition.

On a less philosophical, and more practical, level, the NCLB act uses standardized tests to judge teachers and students. But the states get to make the test, so they can manipulate the tests to make students look like they are doing better, even when they are not. Schools tend to emphasize things that will be on the tests, at the expense of a broad, well balanced curriculum.

There is a lot of opposition of NCLB by teachers for a variety of other reasons. Read up on it, and you will see what I am talking about.
 
Fred Thompson looks Presidential and acts Presidential, that's a plus to start with.

Does anyone know his stand (if any) on allowing Mexican trucks into the interior of the USA?
 
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Paulbot, but I try to be a realistic one. I truly believe Ron Paul would make a better President than any of the other candidates. . . BUT... He isn't likely to get nominated. I attribute this to fear on the part of many voters that he might just eliminate some of the programs they think are alright. Whatever...
Thompson acts like a President should. But then, he's an actor! Writer Desmond Morris, in his book "The Human Zoo," described actors as "professional liars." Perhaps Fred Thompson is lying to us about his positions on a whole lot of issues. Perhaps, but the only way we'll ever know what kind of President he will be is to elect him - - kinda like we did with Bush. We argued and fought tooth and nail over whether or not GWB would be a good President and came to a general conclusion that he was better than Kerry, hardly a ringing endorsement. It looks like we're going to do something similar this time too. Once again, we're going to end up with a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer.
As I've said in other posts, This is my thirteenth general election and probably my last. Twelve times I've voted for the lesser of two evils and twelve times I've gotten evil for my efforts. This time I'm voting for the man I think is best, knowing full well that the rest of the country will vote for either Evil I or Evil II and I'll end my days under a heel.The election will determine whether it is on a jackboot or a woman's slipper.
 
Fred Thompson looks Presidential and acts Presidential, that's a plus to start with.
Click to expand...

So does Rudolph Giuliani. So does Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, etc. Fred Thompson is an actor who is trained to play characters. Voting for personalities and not issues puts our future in jeopardy. Women voted for Bill Clinton because they found him attractive; men liked his personality. You should vote for Fred Thompson only because you think he will take America in the right direction.
 
No. I do not. "Bush III" is quite sickening really.

But AFTER Ron Paul, he is the second best choice, to be sure. An *extremely* distant second, however.
 
You should vote for Fred Thompson only because you think he will take America in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't being serious enough. I do think Thompson is smart, but of course I want to make sure I agree with his real agenda before I vote for him. I did vote for Bush his first term. I am still trying to get over that mistake (for me anyway), so I will be careful this time around.
 
Fred wrote this.

HE GETS IT.

Rewriting History a Classroom at a Time
By Fred Thompson
Thursday, April 26, 2007

By now, we're used to people like Iranian President Ahmadinejad denying that the holocaust ever happened, even while he and his regime promise not only the destruction of Israel but the elimination of Jews internationally.

It's bad enough hearing from a distance about the bizarre anti-Semitic theories taught by heads of state as well as schools and religious leaders. Now, according to a study funded by the British government, we find out that some schools in Great Britain have stopped teaching history that is offensive to Muslim students. The topics that have been erased from the curriculum, the study found, include both the Nazi genocide and the Crusades.

This rewriting of history through omission wasn't some government policy. It was the result of individual decisions in local schools by teachers with large populations of Muslim students. Unfortunately, many of these students have been taught by parents and mosques that the holocaust never happened and that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on Islam by European Christians. History books that present these events in any other light, they believe, are part some giant conspiracy designed to attack their very religion.

If anybody needs to hear these facts, it is the children who are being abused by those who are teaching the same hateful lies that have helped turn the Middle East into the self-destructive and often suicidal mess it is today.

The British are, in the main, a particularly polite people, but there is a point when the desire not to offend the easily offended becomes an even bigger problem. We've already seen an English organization ban images of Piglet, the harmless character from the classic Winnie the Pooh books, because of protests by those who imagine that simply seeing a cartoon pig is a violation of their civil rights. We've even seen the banning of pins bearing St. George's cross, because it reminds some of the Crusades -- accompanied by demands that Great Britain get rid of the venerable Union Jack for the same reason.

These views, common in the Middle East, are not just an academic or intellectual challenge. We have seen homegrown British terrorists act on the same lies and conspiracy theories that are now being used to silence teachers. Ideas do have consequences and we all need to understand that the war on terror is taking place as much in the realm of ideas as it is on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

America is a free country and we do not tell people what they can believe or say. We should realize, however, that there are people in America who are also telling their children that the holocaust is a lie and that those who say otherwise are their enemies. We cannot prevent them from doing so, but we also cannot let them promote their agenda by claiming they are victimized by historical facts.

This would be a good place to quote an important British writer, George Orwell, who wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Even in America, our children are often taught a watered down, inoffensive and culturally sensitive version of events ranging from the Crusades to the battle at the Alamo.

It's time for people who believe that they have a stake in Western civilization and its traditions to get a little backbone -- even if it offends somebody.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top