Did Fred disappoint anyone else tonight in the debate?

U

Unregistered

Moderator
I was really hoping that Fred would come across well tonight, but I don't think he did. He seemed nervous, and spoke poorly. He didn't answer the questions well (if at all). Basically he seemed to think the war in Iraq was going great, the economony was going great, and we just need to keep on doing what Bush has been doing for the last 7 yrs. I think that will doom him. I really was thinking Fred was about to take the nomination by storm, but after tonight, I think Giuliani is a shoe in for the nomination.
 
My good friend is a Fred fan, she hasn't let me know what she thought of him tonight though. He did pretty poorly, but perhaps it was he hadn't been in a debate like this before, he better get his act together fast though.

I think Fred has the same problem Newt would have, basically the country is, rightly or wrongly, fed up with conservatives. Until Bush people might have disagreed with the republicans on lots of things but still thought they were the most fiscally responsible. Bush squandered that legacy so it's up to the potential nominees to put forth a plan to regain it. Nobody in the debate did that, and Fred sounded like Bush all over again. I think he is doomed.
 
I think that it will be a race between Rudy and Hillary. Either way, we lose.

Both have come out and said that they will take guns away.
 
This wasn't a disappointing performance for Fred. This is how his speaking engagements have gone all month. He's very flat without a script.
 
Everyone probably can guess by now that I'm no Rudy fan, but I don't believe he has said that, exactly.

He said some pretty disturbing things in the 1980's through 2000, and is now saying some more positive things, but only some.

He has indicated that his lawsuit against gun makers has "taken some twists and turns" that he did not like. OK, that sounds good. But look a little further. What he does not like is that personal information is being collected and used for private lawsuits. Who could have possibly forseen that in a lawsuit of this nature? :rolleyes:

What he has NOT said is most important of all: he has NOT backed off a bit in terms of saying he was wrong to file the lawsuit in the first place. He still agrees with the central premise of the suit: that gun makers and gun stores are responsible for what is done with guns they sell.

Similarly, he proudly points to his use of gun control to control crime in NYC as mayor, and he still believes his gun control efforts there were a major factor in reducing crime. Unlike the position he held for over 20 years, he says that he does not now want to impose NYC levels of gun control (or more) on the rest of the country. He allows that it might not be appropriate in rural Montana. Better late than never, if he can be believed.

But again, what he has NOT said is most important of all. He has not backed off an inch on the idea that his strict gun control in New York was a great and effective idea for New York.
 
It's kind of hard to argue with him on NYC crime, the fact is when he was mayor crime went down. Personally I think it had more to do with socioeconomic factors than anything else, but politicians always take credit for anything good that happens when they are in charge.
 
I'm not arguing that crime went down, just arguing with Giuliani's belief that gun control was a major factor in crime going down.
 
I suspect, as has been demonstrated by stats over and over, that firearms control had no impact on crime one way or another. Crime rates went down nationwide during that time.

Causes of change in behavior are almost always overdetermined. The fact is we don't know why most things happen especially when it comes to human behavior. But that won't stop politicians from taking credit for anything good that happens and blaming their opponents for anything bad that happens.

At least Guliani and McCain seem to have some ideas and the beginning of a message. Fred really seemed to be arguing that people who thought Bush wasn't a good president were mistaken. It will be very hard to beat Hillary by comparing BushII's record to ClintonI's record, in most people's mind that comparison is a slam dunk for Clinton. As memories fade the Clinton years seem better and better.
 
basically the country is, rightly or wrongly, fed up with conservatives
Click to expand...
Wrong. The country is fed up with people who are supposed to be conservatives but don't end up acting like it. We're fed up with what we got when we wanted conservatives. What has killed conservatism is policial product convergence.
 
I don't find it odd that haters will find one misspoken word and then trash the candidate's entire profile, life, policies and any future policies that may evolve.

For example, Clinton didn't know anything about domestic issues, and was a disaster about foreign matters. If it wasn't for Greenspan I doubt that Slick Willie could make change from a dollar.

When you support a candidate you are voting to implement an officer of a particular branch of government as written in The Constitution. I don't read one iota where The Framers demanded that the Executive had to know the capitol of Borneo before being sworn in.

I do believe Thompson has a vision or an idea how America should be governed in the future. I believe him to be a strict constructionist. And for every detractor who states he got a twenty year old fact incorrect, I will state that Mr. Thompson has not splattered a twenty year old girl.

There's an old Sicilian adage that goes, "A lion can lead a flock of sheep better than a sheep can lead a pride of lions."

I doubt Hillary has a real understanding of The Consitution and the professional politicians will core her like an over-ripe apple. And Giulani is a righthand aisle version of "Clinton Lite." I hear Monica Lewinski is brushing up on her Constructionist homework.
 
I believe him to be a strict constructionist.
Click to expand...

Then I am not sure you know what a strict constructionist is.

I don't have a problem with Fred Thompson, he is probably the best candidate running, and maybe the most electable. But he isnt a strict constructionist (though it is a fad for people to claim that).
 
Unregistered said:
Then I am not sure you know what a strict constructionist is.
Click to expand...

Yikes, there is such a thing as tact.

For example, I have asked the folks here at TFL to view "Live By It" on the Harley home website. I thought it might be a fun way to see how modern bikers are reacting to today's America. And let's face it, you don't have to read too far between the lines to see that my personal feelings ring that the majority of Americans are pansies.

But is that the image you want me to project 24/7? Of course not. I also believe in polite and positive debates, even when outlining our most passionate postulates.

And I also believe this idea applies to Mr. Thompson. I see nothing wrong in believing that The Framers meant a Republic outlined and governed by The Constitution, as written. In addition, we have The Federalist Papers.

In fact, we also have Amendments added throughout time to make course corrections as newer events became apparent. No jackboots. Honest debates. Change under the votes of elected officials.

If that is not his style, then you should be able to copy and paste his contradictions.
 
Aside from Duncan Hunter & Ron Paul & maybe Huckabee, I've never in my life seen such a pathetic line-up of supposed conservative candidates for office, and I've seen my share of pathetic line-ups. This POTUS race, from both major parties, when you look at the front-runners, epitomizes the "lesser of evils" phenomenon. If Paul can't win, and Thompson can't get a head of steam going due to lack of charisma or whatever reason, then the conservatives had better hope and pray that someone like Huckabee or Hunter starts blowing everyone else away, soon, because non of these front-runners can beat anyone the Dems can put up, IMO, except maybe Thompson, but as mentioned, he has his problems, too.
 
All you have to do is look at Fred Thompson's senate record to know he is not a strict constructionist.

If we look at Campaign Finance Reform, for example, how can a strict constructionist possibly misconstrue the Constitution so badly as to believe this law is actually consitutional.
 
I only got to see the first few minutes of the debate. Fred's my man, but I was disappointed in his answer to the Chinese permanent most favored trading status question. He basically said, "that ship has sailed, but we haven't cleaned up the details well enough."

Bull. There is a dawning sentiment in this country that China's products suck. Economic advantage has done little to breed freedoms. Why have a most favored status for anybody?

He should have said that he would ask for Congress to end the most favored nation program completely. Of course they won't, but it would have sounded better than what he said.
 
:
basically the country is, rightly or wrongly, fed up with conservatives
Click to expand...

Wrong. The country is fed up with people who are supposed to be conservatives but don't end up acting like it. We're fed up with what we got when we wanted conservatives. What has killed conservatism is policial product convergence.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What we are fed up with is RINOs who are faux Conservatives. And hyenas like McCain who claim to be Conservatives while proudly unveiling travesties such as McCain-Feingold and McCain-Bush-Kennedy.

Someone like Duncan Hunter suits me just fine. Tancredo or Huckabee would be acceptable. Of course, none of them is The Annointed One, so I'm just dreaming...:rolleyes:
 
I wasn't impressed. He was supposed to come out on fire...say all the things we normal people think and set folks right. I like the "idea" of Fred Thompson but haven't actually seen any substance about "how" he is planning on doing anything he talks about. To me that is important.

And as for the last post "...not the anointed one..." I feel that way too. I say screw what the repubs and the media say we should be for and start supporting who we like. If it divides the republican party then so be it. It is about time the part of the conservative start acting like conservatives.

Go Huckabee!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top