Fred Thompson For 2008

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Agreed. I never understood why a general election for federal offices is held on the same day throughout the US, but primaries for the same offices aren't.

It actually not for the same office, its for their party's nomination. Technically one needs not to take part to run for POTUS. Look at Crazy Ross as a example.

If I had to put money down today I would say that Fred Thompson will be on the R ticket. Main stumbling block would be any skeletons that may be in his closet.

A interesting side note is that Thompson & McCain are very good friends. McCain / Thompson '08 is a decent bet. Thompson may understand that McCain would be a one termer due to age and health so 4 years a VP would position him well for 2012. You heard it here first

Ron Paul is toast, sorry to say.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

It actually not for the same office, its for their party's nomination. Technically one needs not to take part to run for POTUS. Look at Crazy Ross as a example.

Understood. I'm just surprised that the parties don't coordinate internally to make sure the primaries are all on the same day nationwide for federal offices. This would ensure that everyone's vote counted, unlike the current situation. As billamj pointed out, by the time the PA primaries are held, our votes will likely be nothing more than a rubber stamp, unless the tallies are VERY close.

Originally Posted by phillyd2

If I had to put money down today I would say that Fred Thompson will be on the R ticket. Main stumbling block would be any skeletons that may be in his closet.

A interesting side note is that Thompson & McCain are very good friends. McCain / Thompson '08 is a decent bet. Thompson may understand that McCain would be a one termer due to age and health so 4 years a VP would position him well for 2012. You heard it here first

Ron Paul is toast, sorry to say.

If Ron Paul doesn't make it, I could see myself giving my vote to Fred Thompson. However, I will NOT if McCain is his running mate. I don't like McCain, nor do I like his voting record on 2nd Amendment issues.

[NineseveN]

Thompson's lack of a voting record and experience will be more of a hurdle than his supporters would like to admit. He's got a long way to go, despite what the polls say. It's easy to be liked when you're not running officially, that's not the case now, so we'll see where it goes now.

[ChamberedRound]

For those interested, information on Fred Thompson's positions and voting record, from the Michael Bane blog:

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007...amendment.html

Fred Thompson on the Second Amendment

All joking aside, with Fred Thompson set to enter the Presidential race next month, EVERY ONE OF US needs to understand what is at stake in 2008.

The three current serious Republican contenters include Rudy "I Helped Bill Clinton Pass Gun Laws!" Giuliani; John "Gun Show Loopholes and We Don't Need No Stinkin' First Amendment!" McCain and Mitt "Lifelong Hunter" Romney — all three with flawless antigun credentials! Let 'em twist and weasel however they want...their views are the public record.

On the Democratic side, we have a choice between rock star Barack "Ban Everything" Obama and Hillary "Ban Everything" Clinton, with pro-gun Bill Richardson out there in Never-Never Land.

Fred Thompson can win this thing.

Here's what he thinks about the foremost issue in our minds...

• On the Second Amendment —"If you care about constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s 31-year-old gun ban — one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices."

• On the Virginia Tech nightmare — "Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so."

• On gun control — Thompson opposes gun control, praising a recent federal appeals decision overturning a long-standing handgun ban in Washington, D.C.: "The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that."

• His voting record:

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)

• Gun Owners of America ratings — "He has no need to convince voters that he has changed his ways and now sees the light, because he has been fairly consistent throughout his career."

Here is the bottom line, folks — we in the gun culture do NOT have a second choice! Fred Thompson is our candidate; let's get him elected!

And could we please please have Condolezza Rice as VP?

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Thompson's lack of a voting record and experience will be more of a hurdle than his supporters would like to admit. He's got a long way to go, despite what the polls say. It's easy to be liked when you're not running officially, that's not the case now, so we'll see where it goes now.

I think the opposite. No vote on the war, immigration, etc. gives him the "freedom" to say what he wants now about the issues. Looks at all the Dems trying to "explain" their Yes vote on the war. Fun to watch them squirm.

But yes, a long way to go......

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

I think the opposite. No vote on the war, immigration, etc. gives him the "freedom" to say what he wants now about the issues. Looks at all the Dems trying to "explain" their Yes vote on the war. Fun to watch them squirm.

But yes, a long way to go......

I just don't see the bulk of American people electing someone if they have the impression that he has little to no experience in doing the job they're asking him to do. No matter how nice and smooth he sounds, he's got to have some sort of credentials and experience that rings true with the people...otherwise, Bruce Springsteen could have become President.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Understood. I'm just surprised that the parties don't coordinate internally to make sure the primaries are all on the same day nationwide for federal offices. This would ensure that everyone's vote counted, unlike the current situation. As billamj pointed out, by the time the PA primaries are held, our votes will likely be nothing more than a rubber stamp, unless the tallies are VERY close.

If Ron Paul doesn't make it, I could see myself giving my vote to Fred Thompson. However, I will NOT if McCain is his running mate. I don't like McCain, nor do I like his voting record on 2nd Amendment issues.

I like the small states going first as it gives the candidates time to sit and meet with voters. In larger states such as PA, NY, CA, etc. its all TV ads and mass rallies giving the same stump speech. Like selling soap. Smaller markets allow for a more retail type of politics.

About McCain, I too disagree with many of his stands and he may be temperamentally unsuited for the Whitehouse but I can not understand how any could not deeply respect a man that has done what he has as a POW. His steely uncompromising character and bravery deserves respect by all Americans and I am willing to give a pass as to not judge him to harshly about some of his mistakes. I may not vote for him but I will never put that man down. We can do much worse than having a real man as POTUS.

About Ron Paul not making it, take it to the bank. Nothing wrong with him but the country is not on the same wavelength. Not even close. More agree with David Duke than agree with Ron Paul. Since the 30's and more in the 60's we as a people have learned to vote our own self interests. Since then its been way beyond game over so the best we can now hope for is a finger in the dike.

The game is over. Its just a matter of the final score and how ugly the end will be. Here I speak not about the election.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I just don't see the bulk of American people electing someone if they have the impression that he has little to no experience in doing the job they're asking him to do. No matter how nice and smooth he sounds, he's got to have some sort of credentials and experience that rings true with the people...otherwise, Bruce Springsteen could have become President.

Put on your glasses, pull up a chair and sit awhile

He has the exact same "experience" as did JFK. Carter was considered (still by me) a joke. IKE never held elected office. Truman was a nobody Senator. Clinton compared to Bush I in regards to experience? Please! Hell, Crazy Ross got 20% AFTER he went even crazier and dropped out/in.

Talk about experience? Think Bush II. He made it only on gut feel. He made the lack of experience a asset. "The leader of Pakistan who took power of a country with nukes? some general guy....." Great stuff indeed.

May God bless them all but I put nothing past the American people.

[NineseveN]

Fred is not JFK, nowhere even close in terms of appeal to the average American. Those others all had very strong points going for them (even if you disagreed with their strong points, they still had them) aside from their lack of experience, which is what Fred will need if he wants to compete.

It's not as easy as saying, "I'm Fred Thompson, you may know me from TV, I want to be president, this is how I feel about the issues".

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Fred is not JFK, nowhere even close in terms of appeal to the average American. Those others all had very strong points going for them (even if you disagreed with their strong points, they still had them) aside from their lack of experience, which is what Fred will need if he wants to compete.

It's not as easy as saying, "I'm Fred Thompson, you may know me from TV, I want to be president, this is how I feel about the issues".

You are right, his father was not a boot legging Nazi lover and he has never to the best of my knowledge had a affair with a Soviet spy while lying about a fatal disease that was treated with a cocktail of speed and other drugs...but you never know. Its good to remember that most Americans only claimed to have voted for JFK after Dallas. He won by a slim margin and the country was extremely divided. He is myth now but it was not true during his 1000 days.

Seriously, I wonder what power you think any President has. It is exactly that easy because that's what they all do and have always done. That is the only thing they can offer. Very few actually "did" anything. Unless you call voting in the Senate or being a governor as "doing" something". All a President can do is have a few larger set goals and try to convince the Congress and by extension the People to support him. Think Reagan. Taxes actually went up in his 8 years but not as much as if Carter or Mondale would have won. That's all we really have to vote on. Real change needs to come from the local and State level but you see how well that is going.

Never really understood the concept of looking to the President to solve anything. This type of dependency is a illusion that guarantees disappointment and heart break.