Fred is Fundamental

It's Ron Paul Lite.

I like his bobble-head action. It hides that he's clumsily reading a teleprompter.

A 1994 New York Times profile wrote that "When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to [Thompson]."

A former lobbyist lob to boot.

Nice vegetarian flame Charlatan - no meat to it. Is there anything particular you dont like about Fred (or Ron for that matter) or is it just the letter behind his name?

Fred is 'fundamental.' It's funny how fast all of the GOP contenders are heading 'right.' Seems to me they can't head there fast enough.

Apparently they are under the dillusion that America is far-right too.

After these past 6 years of teetering right, Americans have slid a bit left due to acute nausea.

Here is a great Ron Paul video from when he was on the Morton Downey Jr. show.

http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1175886608

>>It's funny how fast all of the GOP contenders are heading 'right.'>>

What I find funny is how different our perceptions are. I don't see all the GOP contenders heading to the right - to the contrary, I see them pandering to the center by being wishy washy on the tough subjects. Of course, the same is true for everyone on the left.

Thompson is refreshing on that point because he doesn't appear to be managing perceptions by being both for and against something at the same time. He is just flat out for it or against it - no qualifiers, no flip flops.

But regardless of left or right in the mainstream talking points, he is talking directly about low level fundamentals like federalism, individual liberty, and how those things map to a free market, a strong economy and the preservation of the country.

I really like that because if those basics can be communicated and understood - then people have the tools they need to make all the other decisions on the higher level questions.

When I talk to people I often find that when presented with 50 issues they feel like they have 50 decisions to make. But, to me, there are only about 3 or 4 fundamental decisions to make and those end up deciding every other issue for you.

These are the things he is talking about - and I think that is really important. Because I think that more times than not the position of Americans on the fundamentals will end up being on the individual liberty side - But I don't think that enough people have explored that and have made the connection between that foundation and all the policy floating around at the surface.

"It's funny how fast all of the GOP contenders are heading 'right."

What I think is funny (sad) is how GOP contenders campaign right then drift center, and Lib's campaign center and then drift left...

Thompson is refreshing on that point because he doesn't appear to be managing perceptions by being both for and against something at the same time. He is just flat out for it or against it - no qualifiers, no flip flops.

Today's a busy day for me and I was hoping to keep out of this for the most part, but the above statement is so obvious wrong, I'm forced to reply...

Abortion
Currently: anti-abortion
Past: pro-choice:
From http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html

Under abortion: He checked the box for: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy." He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.

Thompson lobbied for abortion-rights group, it says

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story - you'll need to copy and paste this link

Thompson has similar results for immigration, I simple don't have the time to run down the quotes.

All presidential candidates pander to the extremes of their bases when running in the primaries and move toward the center when running for the office.

Hillary's done this pretty well with her changing positions on Iraq, despite the fact that Obama tries to use it against her.

Personally, it's one of the things that really disappoints me so much - that they don't just have principles that they then apply to issues.

I'd be much more appreciative of a candidate (right or left leaning) who said consistently "here's what I believe and so I'd do xyz" regardless of the question.

Perhaps this is one reason why I've always liked Ron Paul's votes. He always says 'what does the Constitution say' and then votes accordingly...

And Dennis Kucinich is pretty good at this aspect, too.

"
Nice vegetarian flame Charlatan - no meat to it. Is there anything particular you dont like about Fred (or Ron for that matter) or is it just the letter behind his name?
"

Sorry you were insulted by my "flame." I would call it a comment, but some people are a little more sensitive than others.

Fred Thompson is known for reading lines with conviction and lobbying without shame... the equivalent of Krusty the Clown... hey hey!

Somehow you think he's a leader/bright hope for America? lulzworthy

You are easy to please, which is perhaps more politically expedient/dangerous than apathy.

The sizzle of hot dogs...

The last time I looked at the polls it still seemed to be Clinton vs. Guiliani. For some voters it may come down to who looks better on TV, but for others there will be number of considerations. Who will protect this nation better against terrorists (if that can be done with any real chance)? Who will respond with better organized violence, and diplomacy if (or when) such an attack comes? Who will harness the economy better to deal with the threat? And who will provide the leadership to permit the greatest good to the greatest number to occur? Is it going to be principle vs. pragmatism? Will we elect another Franklin Roosevelt, or Herbert Hoover?

What I think is funny (sad) is how GOP contenders campaign right then drift center, and Lib's campaign center and then drift left...

posted by billy on Sep 07, 2007 at 09:52:22 am #
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad they don't give out awards for blog posts. ;^)

More fun with Fred...

I just dis-like the contrast for how Dean was treated verses Thompson.

via Crooks and Liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/thompson-due-process-for-bin-laden/

Thompson: due process for bin Laden

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson said Monday that while Osama bin Laden needs to be caught and killed, the terrorist mastermind would get the due process of law.

Last week, when bin Laden’s latest tape emerged, Thompson said the terrorist responsible for 9/11 is “more symbolism than anything else.” When that drew some criticism, Thompson adopted a tougher line, saying bin Laden “ought to be caught and killed.”

Today, the actor/lobbyist/politicians sought to clarify, saying he wasn’t suggesting that bin Laden’s death would happen immediately after his capture.

“No, no, no, we’ve got due process to go through” depending on the circumstances, he said. “I’m not suggesting those things happen simultaneously.”

As it turns out, Thompson isn’t the first presidential hopeful to argue publicly that bin Laden deserves due process of law. The first was Howard Dean, four years ago. Of course, when he said that, the right went apoplectic. Will conservatives be equally quick to condemn Thompson? I’m not holding my breath.

The orginal post has a bunch of links. I'd put them in myself but this new format to TT is very un-friendly.