D.A. Arthur Branch is gonna do it (probably)

[applesanity]

First sentence in this USA Today article:

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson hasn't formally announced he'll run for the Republican presidential nomination -- but today he did begin raising money for a prospective bid, USA TODAY Washington bureau chief Susan Page writes.

Or we can all continue to sing praises for Ron Paul.

"McClane. This what you expected?"

 

[Manedwolf]

I can just see what sort of response he'd make to the rantings of Ahmadine-jihad, with a smirk and cigar in mouth.

He'd make a great president, IMO.

 

[b22]

Fred Thompson would probably make a good president but not near as good as Ron Paul would make.

According to G.O.A. he voted anti-gun 14 times out of 33.
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

Ron Paul votes against everything anti-gun and sponsers legislation to end gun control.
www.gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm


According to http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP (could set off new cold war, very very bad idea)
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education

All of those are bad ideas/waste of money imo.


He's a member of the Council for Foreign Relations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=187920

They are the ones pushing for the North American Union.
Here, straight from the horse's mouth, the CFR website:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

The CFR is funded by the Global Elite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations#Morgan_and_Rockefeller_involvement

These people push for the North American Union and Globalism:
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html

and the NAFTA superhighway:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497


He's also a member of the AEI
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070321222149nnnn.nb/topstory.html


He's an actor and I don't want someone who is good at lying in office. Actors are very good at lying because of the fact that they are actors. He also smokes cuban cigars, I can't support any candidate that doesn't completely respect the law.

 

[Avenger29]

He does have a better chance than Ron Paul...

Hey, I agree with this

Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months

and this

Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds

But I am definitley against the NAU stuff, and stuff like this:

Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education

And as far as this goes:

Voted YES on school vouchers in DC

I am against the DC vouchers. Vouchers for the rest of the country, yes, but DC should not have anybody living in it, anyway. It should be set aside as our capitol only.

Everything else, doesn't really concern me as much.

 

[b22]

Hey, I agree with this

Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months

Why? They should be increased dramatically. At least 50 MPG by 2020 I think. Cheap oil isn't going to be around for much longer. Some say that crude production is peaking right now and some say that we have between 2 and 40 years before it does. Either estimate doesn't give us much time to fix the problem. Our whole westernized society and the world economy is fed with oil and when supply starts to decrease both are in big trouble. We need to get off oil while we still have time to do it.

and this

Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds

I agree that we should make it possible to get oil from ANWR (set up drilling and refining equipment) but we really shouldn't start using it just yet. There is really not that much in ANWR to begin with, the US would go through it in a matter of months if we were actually cut off from all other supplies of oil. We have to save it for an actual emergency instead of wasting it now.

Vouchers for the rest of the country, yes

No vouchers. They will be used to send kids to religious schools and I see that as a very bad thing. Religion has no place in education, it conflicts with all logic, reason and science. (that's only my opinion though, not saying it's a fact)

 

[GoSlash27]

Here we go again...

He does have a better chance than Ron Paul...

I don't care. I ain't voting for someone I don't like just because he polls better. May as well vote for Hillary if that's the case.

 

[Al Norris]

Warning!

I'm gonna try and nip this in the bud, now.

This thread is about Fred Thompson. About his possible announcement to enter the race. About whether or not he is qualified. Etc.

This thread is not about Ron Paul. Keep RP out of this thread. Period. You want to talk about the merits of Ron Paul, open another thread or find a current RP thread with which to post.

Keep talking about Ron Paul, which for this thread is now Off Topic, and I guarantee you will be getting one of my (now) infamous emails.

 

[STAGE 2]

Bottom line, Thompson is the most conservative candidate that is ELECTABLE.

This bullhonkey where we pick out 4 or 5 things from a candidates record that we don't agree with to scrap the whole thing is ridiculous and will get us nowhere.

I've got news for everyone. The only candidate you are going to agree with 100% of the time is yourself. Unless you're going to run than compromise is the name of the game.

Thompson might not be the second coming of Ronald Reagan but he's pretty damn close. Hes better than any other electable candidate by far. That means he should get our full support since the alternative is Rudy or hillary.

Pissing away a vote on some unelectable person isn't going to help anyone but those who want to trample our rights.

 

[applesanity]

According to G.O.A. he voted anti-gun 14 times out of 33.

You are talking about the GOA. Believe me, I think they're great, but I also feel that they're slightly off touch with reality, what with the absolute no-compromise thing. We'd all love to have no limits on gun ownership, but it ain't never happening. The best we can hope for is a candidate that consistently believes RTKBA is an individual right, and not a public privilege. I think FDT has mostly and consistently been as such.

Bottom line, Thompson is the most conservative candidate that is ELECTABLE. ...Pissing away a vote on some unelectable person isn't going to help anyone but those who want to trample our rights.

So there's this conspiracy during the 2000 elections, that had Ralph Nader not run, Gore could have won the presidency, because there was a large enough minority of anti-bush people who weren't being realistic.

Thompson is a solid, almost old-school Republican who Republicans can actually vote for without cringing. Unlike Guliani and McCain, the two frontrunners.

I trying to look at the bigger picture. The democrats will be divided between Hillary and Obama, making their ticket not as solid as they think. If we can get behind one practical Republican early on, I think we'll be okay.

Very likely that 2008 will go to a democrat, after the congressional results during the midterm, and bush at a super-low rating. Republicans can't afford to look divided coming into the election.

I tend to be a strict constructionist kind of person. FDT has mostly been that too. One great example is gay marriages - he's not exactly for them, but he understands that the power to issue marriage licenses is strictly a states thing. So if a state like Mass. wants to pull that off, power to them. Meanwhile, voters in other states don't have to do what the Mass. judges did if they don't want to. I'm cool with that.

D.A. Arthur Branch for president!

 

[b22]

Well I can't support anyone that voted to go into Iraq and 70% of the American people probably won't either. I'm not going to vote for the second best candidate when I can vote for the best. The only way republicans are going to win the whitehouse is if they nominate someone who was against the war. I'm not gonna vote for someone that can almost win, I'm gonna vote for someone who will win.

That probably won't happen but it would if all the people that support Thompson got behind R.P.

 

[SecDef]

*yawn*

He's not electable until he's running.
If he's running, he should say so and participate in debates.
If he's even thinking about running, he shouldn't be making predictions.

 

[Wildalaska]

That probably won't happen but it would if all the people that support Thompson got behind R.P.
Today 06:43 PM

cant gtive it a break even after Al asks?

Whatever.

He runs, I dump Rudy for him, even if he is anti choice and anti gay marraige and pro this and anti that.

I usually am a character voter anyway.

WildyacanthaveeverythingAlaska

 

[JuanCarlos]

Bottom line, Thompson is the most conservative candidate that is ELECTABLE. ...Pissing away a vote on some unelectable person isn't going to help anyone but those who want to trample our rights.

Electability matters, I think, because a President is President of the entire country, not a fringe thereof. I think of the Republican candidates, and certainly of the more quasi-conservative options (eliminating Guiliani, probably Romney) he's probably the one who could best pull this off.

I'd say it's between him and Guiliani as to who is the candidate that, after election day, a majority of the populace (including those that voted against him) could probably still get behind. And I'd take him over Rudy.

 

[applesanity]

Well I can't support anyone that voted to go into Iraq and 70% of the American people probably won't either.

A lot of people voted to go into Iraq, like say... Hillary. Oh the hindsight. At the time, with what we knew or what was told to us, going into Iraq made a lot of sense. As I understand, one of the main arguments against going into Iraq at that time was mostly either the isolationist viewpoint or that American military couldn't handle Saddam's military. Nobody was saying, "it'll turn into a guerilla civil war of sectarian violence and IED's." There's the revisionist hindsight.

At any rate, he wasn't a congressman at the time.

He's a member of the Council for Foreign Relations:

I suppose he's probably also part of the trilateral commision, the bilderberg group, Majestic-12, and let us not forget, the Illuminati. Wow, that's like 5 secret handshakes right there.

Another thing about that gay marriage example is the demonstration that, despite whatever his personal beliefs are, he'll go for the letter of the law, which means he'll be serving the office and America, instead of getting all judge-like and preachy by serving himself. We're always quoting the founding fathers - we tend to be letter-people ourselves.

Personally, if it makes them happy, and both individuals are consenting, and they're not infringing on my rights, go ahead and get married. Who are we to deny them all the joys of marriage - all the nagging, the in-laws, , the affairs, the bills, the high-priced divorce attorneys. Straight married people are the ones doing damage to the institution of marriage. Half of all American marriages in in divorce.

The other half end in death.

Back to the main topic: +1 for being a letter-of-the-law candidate.

 

[b22]

I suppose he's probably also part of the trilateral commision, the bilderberg group, Majestic-12, and let us not forget, the Illuminati. Wow, that's like 5 secret handshakes right there.

No those don't exist as far as I'm concerned. The CFR does exist and is pushing for those things.

A lot of people voted to go into Iraq, like say... Hillary

Well I don't ever plan on voting for Hillary so that doesn't really matter to me.

Oh the hindsight. At the time, with what we knew or what was told to us, going into Iraq made a lot of sense.

No it didn't, building WMD's is not a good enough reason to invade a sovereign country.

Nobody was saying, "it'll turn into a guerilla civil war of sectarian violence and IED's." There's the revisionist hindsight.

There were people saying that, just not in public.

At any rate, he wasn't a congressman at the time.

He did support it though, didn't he?

 

[applesanity]

Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months

Hey, I'm for that too. Here's a candidate that's pro-free market, and you're against this? Look, emissions standards aren't gonna do nothing. Look what happened to the american muscle car. What will be the deciding factor is the market. When people start buying hybrids and tiny efficient cars, they won't do it because they like hugging trees; they'll be doing it because gas costs so much. As a continuing trend, sales of Ford trucks are going way down and sales of the Prius are going way up. I'm sure not all of these car buyers are latte-sipping bohemians from San Franciso - they just don't like paying god knows what to fill up their tanks.

Cheap oil isn't going to be around for much longer.

Here's the problem: you're asking the government to be the market-regulating factor in a situation that doesn't require intervention. Also, necessity is the mother of invention and profit motives. Right now, there's this spot in Colorado called the Green River Formation that, at conservative estimates, holds 8 times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. It's just sitting there because right now there's no real economic incentive to find a cheaper way to mine oil shale. We're not gonna run out of oil.

And even if we do, well here's an anecdote: you know why we call them tin cans, even though they're not made of tin? Way back, cans were actually made from tin, but it was becoming a scarcity and everyone was afraid of a tin shortage. So some chemist found an economically viable way to extract aluminum from ore. Before that, aluminum was so hard to purify that it was worn as jewelry.

He's an actor and I don't want someone who is good at lying in office.

...........Reagan?

He also smokes cuban cigars

Oh wow, he needs to spend a few moments in the time-out chair in the back of the classroom. At least he's being consistent with his position that free trade is the best weapon for freedom in general.

Well I don't ever plan on voting for Hillary so that doesn't really matter to me.

Not the point. The point is that all kinds of candidates were in favor.

There were people saying that, just not in public.

That's all fine, but we're concerned with the public opinions of public servants, yeah?

I don't think you can really doubt a candidate based on his/her opinion on Iraq before it started, or even up until the "mission accomplished" month of May.

What matters more is how the candidate sees the situation now. I'm pretty sure the majority of these runners agree at the very least, it's a mess that needs fixing.

 

[applesanity]

Here's an article with some Thompson quotes:

VTech murders, gun control: "Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago."

Judges and social policy: "Many federal judges seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers. We never know when a five to four Supreme Court decision will uphold them. They ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around."

Immigration: "A sovereign nation that can't do that (secure borders) is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again."

From a Robert Novak commentary:

In his Senate voting record and his public utterances, Thompson is more conservative than Giuliani, McCain or Romney. He takes a hard line on the war against terror (referring in Connecticut to the danger of "suicidal maniacs" crossing open borders) and worries about immigration policy creating a permanent American underclass. His one deviation from the conservative line has been support for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, much of which he now considers overtaken by current fundraising practices and perhaps irrelevant. Overall, his tone, in a soft Tennessee drawl, is less harsh than that of other Republican candidates -- a real-life version of the avuncular fictional D.A. he plays on TV.

Don't use what I'm about to say to change the subject... but - notice how there's no mention of Ron Paul?

Is Dennis Kucinich still gonna try for the presidency again?

 

[b22]

A lot of people voted to go into Iraq, like say... Hillary

I should have mentioned this in my first post but Hillary gets a ton of questions about this. It is damaging her a lot, I think.

"Many federal judges seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers. We never know when a five to four Supreme Court decision will uphold them. They ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around."

I really don't agree with this. The first Americans fled England because of religious persecution caused by the state religion in England. I think the founders wanted people to be able to practice whatever religion they wanted and wanted to keep something like the Church of England from ever happening in the USA. A lot of the founders were actually Deist's which is basically the 17th century version of an Agnostic. I'm sure they also wanted people to be allowed to not practice any religion and to be able to go about their lives without having religion related things pushed down their throat.

...........Reagan?

Yes Reagan was an actor but I don't think he was the perfect president a lot of people seem to think he was. He was much better than all other presidents in recent history but nowhere near perfect. This moral majority stuff started in his time and he increased spending on the war on drugs. I think his presidency was also the time that the neoconservatives started to really gain power.

Oh wow, he needs to spend a few moments in the time-out chair in the back of the classroom. At least he's being consistent with his position that free trade is the best weapon for freedom in general.

Cuban cigars are still illegal. If he doesn't respect the little laws, how can I trust him to obey the big ones?

 

[Fremmer]

Fred will make an excellent candidate. A good conservative. I'll speculate that a lot of people who aren't so hot on Rudy, McCain, and/or Romney will vote for Fred.

And the GOA rating? Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with the NRA.

 

[GoSlash27]

I'm sorry, but I'd like to point out that the opening post on this thread specifically mentions "he-who-shall-not-be-named" and to my way of thinking that places him on the table for discussion. Nevertheless, I'll abide by the admin's wishes.

And I hate to burst any bubbles, but Fred Dalton Thompson is *not* electable. He could win the primary, but not the general election. He's simply not different enough from Dubya to escape the voter wrath. The only candidate who would stand a ghost of a chance in the general election, aside from you-know-who, is Newt Gingrich. Even he's probably been too slow distancing himself to escape the Dubya blast-radius.

I'll tell ya again what I said before the last mid-term: People who have an (R) after their name are persona non grata in the general elections unless they publicly condemn and distance themselves from the people and policies that we have endured for the last six years. And even if they do, that's no guarantee that they will survive.
For instance, my district lost a pretty good (R) congressman merely because of the (R) after his name, despite the fact that he was continually at odds with the administration.

Any man who supports the Patriot Act, supports the Iraq war, and has supported this administration isn't going to see the inside of the oval office in January '09 unless he takes the public tour.

Sorry, I know that sucks...but there it is.