Fred Thompson running for president

[DjLoTi]

This is bad. This is going to shift the focus from the grassroots back to the MSMs power.

I'm not sure this guy really has the qualifications, other then being in hollywood, to be a president. I'm almost ready to call it a big joke.

I think this might pull some more liberal undecided voters towards him, and there's lots of people talking about this guy.

Really, besides being on Law and Order, what has he done? I think it'd be good to understand the competition. As soon as I learned as much as I did about Guilani, I knew HE wouldn't be a problem. What about this guy. What are your thoughts

-- Here's the story:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

[angelatc]

I am a former Thompson supporter. He's got a long history in politics, but he hasn't done enough to be comdemned for anything. I think he's good at schmoozing. I also think he's a pro-war.

[brent022]

I'm not sure if I'm pleased or disappointed with this news. While Thompson will draw a lot of MSM Paul wasn't getting much from them anyhow.

On the other hand the more candidates that get a share of the vote make it easier for Paul to become legitimate. 4 Top tier candidates at 15-25% each of the votes vs 3 with 20-30% each of the votes lowers the threshold of what it would take to appear legitimate. It will also further diversfy fundraising to the main candidates more than Paul so hopefully would keep us from falling that much farther behind in metrics used in considering the validity of a campaign.

Either way we need to just keep doing what we are doing. Building a solid growing base of Ron Paul supporters.

At least thats my unexperienced opinion.

[BW4Paul]

He's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that has pushed for implementation of the North American Union by 2010, forcing us to merge certain aspects of our government with Canada and Mexico. That's good enough (bad enough) for me to have no interest in supporting him.

Just another neocon, but his fame and TV-generated "trustworthiness" makes him that much mre dangerous.

[qednick]

Same here. I almost choked on my corn flakes. Thompson is another war-mongering CFR-member neo-con but here's why he's dangerous:

1) Face recognition (a lot of people watch Law & Order) and will vote just based on that (unfortunate but true)

2) He's going to come across as being the "bridge" to bring all the GOP fractions together.

3) If another neo-con gets in, we're likely to end up with Hillary as president.:(

[TheConstitutionLives]

No political figure can touch Ron Paul's defense of rights and the constitution. Nobody. Thompson voted for the Patriot Act which is a disgrace in a free country. He's also pro-war and NO pro-war candidate is going to win an election. Paul is the ONLY candidate that can beat Hillary. A pro-war candidate is NOT going to win. Hillary is borderline pro-war. She and Obama are serious about bombing Iran. A republican will not win on a pro-war ticket. People are tired of it. The only shot the GOP has at the WH would be to nominate RP, which they're too stubborn to do. He's the only one that has some appeal from all sides of the political spectrum, excluding the neo-fascists neo-cons.

The GOP has few choices.

They can nominate RP, re-aquaint themselves with their republican traditions, bring back the traditional conservatives that left the party, and have a legitimate shot at the WH.

Or RP enters as an Independent and screws the GOP for sure when he takes so much of the vote w/ him b/c they'll nominate one of their pro-war, pro-torture candidates and be guarenteed to lose.

[angelatc]

Every poll I saw indicated that when people reviewed the list of top tier candidates, they wanted a different choice. That's Fred.

People like Fred. He's got an "America's Dad" persona going for him. He's also married to a Republican strategist, so everything he does is planned and probably has been planned for a couple of years.

I think he's just another typical politician. There will be no real change in government if he wins.

[MsDoodahs]

Fred's a warmonger.

[burnice]

He's a big hit on this military forum I torture myself with. And we've all seen he's able to rake in the poll numbers, even without declaring candidacy. But I still don't think he can beat whoever the dems nominate. The country, while patently brainwashed by the idea of "choice" in this election, is tired of the same old shit from republicans. TV star or no, I don't believe he will win the election if he gets the nomination. But I do think he *may* be able to take some of Ron's momentum - which is unfortunate, since the dialogue created by Ron's campaign is so, so important.

In keeping with the theory that the two parties are more like two heads of the same hydra, I think it's obvious that we're being set up to have a democrat for president this time.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Why is this guy constantly on polls even though he never said he would run? I mean, did the media just decide to cover him or what?

[drinkbleach]

Fred Thompson definetly has some good lines.

[peruvianRP]

Like some people said is about perception. People saw him on TV acting as a good president and they think he'll be a real good president.
Sighs...America sometimes is so dumb.

[angelatc]

Again, he's married to a political strategist. He also is the regular sub for Paul Harvey, so he gets a lot of editorial air time that way too.

The Washington Post said he is basically a McCain.

[NMCB3]

Fred is just what many in the republican base are looking for. Namely, someone to tell them what they want to hear, say all the right things about the issues whether or not he is sincere. The neocons love Fred, so will many on the Christian right. He could easily win the primary, beating a democrat in the general election is less certain. But lets face it, with the propaganda machine on his side, along with millions in special interest money, and the fact that the machine has 18 months to further brainwash the general public, anythings possible.

One thing is certain his foreign and domestic policy is more of the same. He likes needless wars, he is pro amnesty, he votes for gun control, and he`s anti-constitution/pro PATRIOT ACT. May as well just keep Bush in for another four years. He is basically a king anyway.

On the democrat side, they are all pushing various forms of socialism. Universal health care, more welfare, excess profits tax on business, raise the income tax to facilitate their wealth redistribution schemes. Plus although they talk about ending the war, they are lying. They are also chomping at the bit to start a war with Iran (as if the middle east is not screwed up enough already.)

One thing is clear, we the people are going to lose either way. Liberty is going to lose, and the Constitution is going to lose, what`s left of it.

[wwycher]

You know that the Republicans don't really want to win. After I heard the first debate, I knew it. They know Americans are not gonna' vote for another Bush. I mean Hillary will suit the globalist just fine. We know that this what it what it is all about, don't we? Fred Thompson has major face recognition and he will crush Rudy McRomney like a bug. Republicans love him cause he has this John Wayne personna, but that aint't gonna beat Billary. We have to get Ron Paul that same recognition and a slew of voters to register Republican. It is gonna be tough and exspensive, but not impossible.

[joeu]

Thompson wants to continue the war.....Not good policy but he is not bad (not so good as Paul) on some domestic issues.

He also differs on a minor but telling point . Ron Paul believes the prossecution and conviction of Scooter Libby was appropriate. Thompson actively supported Libby.

[cujothekitten]

For anyone that isn't familiar with him:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

Wow, he actually voted against something that directly affects me... not that I mind, I don't use government funds for my minority and women owned business but one of my partners wants us to.

"Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)"

Here are some things that bug me:

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)... ummmm
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)

[NMCB3]

He also differs on a minor but telling point . Ron Paul believes the prossecution and conviction of Scooter Libby was appropriate. Thompson actively supported Libby.He also voted no on impeaching Clinton for lying under oath. If he thinks lying under oath is not wrong, then that just shows his disrespect for the rule of law. Or maybe he feels the elites are actually above the law?

[drinkbleach]

He also voted no on impeaching Clinton for lying under oath. If he thinks lying under oath is not wrong, then that just shows his disrespect for the rule of law. Or maybe he feels the elites are actually above the law?

For somebody who played on Law&Order, Thompson does have a tendency to hold our laws in contempt. Like smoking cuban cigars while voting to stregnthen the Embargo against Cuba. The neocons will love him for his blatant hypocrisy.

[beermotor]

The GOP has few choices.

They can nominate RP, re-aquaint themselves with their republican traditions, bring back the traditional conservatives that left the party, and have a legitimate shot at the WH.

Or RP enters as an Independent and screws the GOP for sure when he takes so much of the vote w/ him b/c they'll nominate one of their pro-war, pro-torture candidates and be guarenteed to lose.


This is great to remember. Also, it's about the MESSAGE. We win no matter who gets elected. Think about all the kids who are getting energized today ... to become the next RPs in Congress in the next decade. There's definitely a movement towards the Truth happening, which is a wonderful thing.

:)

I share your thoughts though - the Republicans are doomed if they pick anyone other than RP, simple as that. By Nov. of 08, the war weariness is just going to be even worse than it is now (probably a LOT worse, if Bush starts bombing Iran).

[4Horsemen]

Oh, gee, not another "Hollywood" actor playing president again. He needs to be called out for what he is, a CFR/NWO pig.

[kylejack]

Have you guys seen the video he filmed in response to Michael Moore?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYH0i3UnWAY

This is a president?? That's like the opposite of class.

[Sir VotesALot]

He must be stopped.

[LibertyOrDie]

I wonder how long before we see him in the debates - does anyone know if he can get into the next one hosted by CNN?

[giskard]

READ THIS:

http://presidentialcandidates.wetpaint.com/


The worst thing about him is his membership in the Council for Foreign Relations.


Here are some quotes from CFR members:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton