Comments on: Is Fred Thompson too soporific for the White House?

By: Hman

Hman — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:50:58 +0000

I am not a liberal, but I am embarrassed how shallow it is that my fellow Republicans are getting excited about this man. Republicans are so desparate to start jumping behind someon so shallow. He is a Washington insider that tries to portray himself as an outsider - this is clearly his best role as an actor. The only thing he worked hard on when he was in Washington was scoring with as many women as humanly possible - he rivals Wilt Chamberlain in this regard. He had almost the identical path on abortion as Mitt Romney - before he held office he thought the government should stay out of it, but then he got in and decided he needed to uphold the constitution. He looks like like he might die any second, and there is no way he will ever be able to keep up the pace necessary to beat Hillary. He has known for months that he is going to run for President, but he has not declared because he lacks the discipline nor the desire to work. And everyting I see him standing next to his daughter, I mean wife, I get that warm and fuzzy family values feeling. What are my fellow Republicans thinking? We may not be able to keep the White House in 08, but nominating Fred is like giving up.

By: Gus Burk

Gus Burk — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:24:15 +0000

Interesting the liberals on this page attack Fred personally.
God forbid we say that Hillary is an enabler for bill in his blatant womanising and sexual excursions. In fact it appears that she is so insipid that she thinks that it’s ok if he screws half of NYC righ under her nose.
Now she is a real stand up person with her crocodillian tears with fond thoughts of Bil and Monica and the cigar sailing around inside her empty skull, while attempting to convince the media that she has talked to God and reconciled to forgive him. LMAO when I start thinking of it.
And you are worried about Fred? LOLOLOL!!

By: mikeVA

mikeVA — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:54:55 +0000

He is not in the September debate? ROFL. He should stay home and nap on his jeri-juggs.

By: mikeVA

mikeVA — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:49:06 +0000

Fred is an idiot. His accomplishments include five bills. The most significant of the bunnch was naming a post office. He opposed tort-reform, ie, those gun industry lawsuits. He cosponsored McCain-Feingold impacting the free speech of every conservative issue.

Why is this guy running for President? Has he raised any money? He is not the conservative alternative, and everytime a fredhead blabs i assume they’re lying like their hero about his abortion lobbying.

De minimis is a joke.

By: John

John — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:28:15 +0000

Fred served more than one term if I am correct. He won Al Gore’s seat and was re-elected with over 60% of the vote in 1996. He served about the same ammount of time in the Senate as Hillary Clinton. The problem with all of these critques ( except the one about him being old) is that he is facing Hillary Clinton. 49% of Americans have an unfavorable view of her and if Fred has any scandals behind him, the Clintons have far more. Many people haven forgotten all of the scandals of the Clinton era in part because Bill Clinton connected with a lot of Americans on an emotional level. Hillary is smart but she lacks the charm of Bill. She isnt as strong a candidate as her name suggests. Her views on abortion and taxation are not going to win her too many fans either. This idea that Clinton who is no more experienced or accomplished than Fred is going to “mop him up in ‘08″ is ridiculous. Neither of them are the best options for America yet again, but Clinton and Thompson are fairly equal on experience and accomplishments. Thompson passed his bar exam the first time aferall, Clinton didnt.

By: Gary from TEXAS

Gary from TEXAS — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:07:14 +0000

I find it interesting that while in the Senate for his short period, Fred Thompson served as Chairman of the then, U.S. Committee on Governmental Affairs, (since renamed Department of Homeland Security). Some of the duties of this particular committee included measures regarding budget and accounting. One of the challenges for the committee during his tenure was the investigation of alleged campaign irregularities by the DNC and Clinton Administration. Apparently Fred paid real good attention and learned his lessons well regarding ethics and campaign funds. Upon leaving the Senate, he took $378,000 worth of campaign funds with him and shortly after leaving paid the bulk of the funds to a consulting firm by the name of Daniel Thompson Consulting; a company with no phone number, no address and no employees, run by his son.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:06:07 +0000

All this talk about Thompson and yet not one person has brought up the fact that he looks old and horrible. No one asks to see his medical records even though he has an incuralbe disease. It is okay because it is Fred. He no longer has a booming voice but then on TV they have such things as sound engineers. He flubbed a WRITTEN speech at the VFR and Obama got almost three times as many applause as Fred. He has trouble concentrating when asked a question and had to be prodded by Sen Grassley to go greet some supporters at the Iowa State Fair. He also disappears for days on end and if he walks very long has to rest. Only candidate to be driven around in a cart at the Fair.

Take a look at pictures from the Iowa State Fair and tell me you want this man elected. The Nixon mole who was part of the Watergate team, lobbyist inside the beltway, lackluster Senator inside the beltway, left the Senate for an acting gig, made sure a firm hired his wife to be a political consultant when before she met him she had questionable character and still owes money in TN, and yet people want him to be President?

Hillary would have Fred Thompson for lunch. Can I assume that Good Old Boy Fred who hasn’t lived in TN for years but drove around in a red pickup as a backdrop to make him a Good Old Boy, is not going to participate in the next debate even though he said he was? He makes a statement and his campaign (his wife) releases a statement an hour later contradicting him.

Give us all a break and the Republican Party and stop the nonsense that gets posted about where Fred stands. Who knows as he flip flops to suit the moment.

By: Vic Lundquist

Vic Lundquist — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:31:59 +0000

The big question to quash the “lazy” label and make it go away is, “What has Fred Thompson actually accomplished?” Has he ever been a leader of anything or an executive of anything? It is now well known that he hated being a senator. What if he gets elected President and wakes up one day and finds out that being President is a little more difficult and time consuming than being a Senator? And if you watch/listen to interviews of Thompson, he doesn’t even really want to be President. He will soon announce that he is going to seek the position of running the largest enterprise this world has ever known. What has Fred Thompson ever done in his life to qualify him for such an enormous responsibility?

By: ET

ET — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:51:52 +0000

Anti-Abortion with no quibbles. Pro-Gun Rights with no quibbles. Secure the Borders prior to any discussion of the disposition of Illegal Immigrants currently in America with no quibbles.No abandonment of Iraq to a Terrorist or Iranian takeover with no quibbles. Fred Thompson has been infinitely more direct about these issues as a non-candidate than all of the other announced candidates.He (and his wife) have been personally attacked, yet he has not personally attacked any of the candidates.He has instead stated his position in relationship to those of the other candidates. In the Top Tier on all major polls, all on a budget of less than $1 Mil. Fred Thompson is batting 1000.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:20:25 +0000

Your bottom line is correct in that when he declares as an actual candidate that Americans will have a right to know where Fred stands. But my observation is that I know at least as much about where he stands as I do with where any of the other candidates (Republican or Democrat) stand. He has been clear on Iraq–as you even quoted. He has been clear on gun control. He has been clear on tax policy. He has been clear on a dozen other issues.

Even better, he has expressed a philosophy of how he makes his decisions (Federalism). To me knowing a candidate’s philosophy is more important than knowing whatever hair brain policy plan that even if elected will change due to the law making process. And that is what Thompson has not done–float weird policy plans. I content that you don’t know any better about a candidate by just seeing what plan he wants to implement.