I don't see how Thompson is a stronger candidate than Giuliani.

http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/united-states/2310-fred-thompson.html

Saw a little blurb on Fred here

http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/a-republican-to-vote-for/

it made me interested enough to learn more

The only candidate who is a true conservative, and who can save America is Ron Paul.

I'd rather see Alan Keyes in the mix. Thompson has very little to offer except another name in the fray. He is basically a pro-abortionist who wants to come across as pro-life. His support of the campaign finance bill hurts activists. I'm not excited about him at all.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Some real off wall statements from some of you out there. Look at the canidates the D's are running. A junior from Kansas and and an x first what ever. Neather party has a viable canidate out there. All are party people, they are not truely looking for what is best for you, me or the country but what the party big wigs and themselves want or need. We need a third and maybe a fouth ligitimus party in this nation. The choices we have been offered over the past fourty or fifty lears have been the lesser of two evils. I am a conservative Republican but if Harry Truman was available he would get my vote no matter what ticket he ran on. As for the U.N., we need to leave it and they need to move to one of the do nothing countries like France or Italy. Last but not least most of your Demo canidates would put U.S. Forces under UN controll and that is something that should never happen.

As a life long registered Democrat I've been trying to find a candidate to support for President. So far I've yet to see anyone on the Democratic side who is not pandering to the pro-illegal immigrant groups/lobbyists while they continue to ignore middle class peoples concerns regarding the illegal immigration problem and costs in their communities.
The Republicans on the other hand have several candidates from Ron Paul (a Republican who also voted against the war) to Tom Tancredo who has been a leader against amnesty proposals that reward illegals who have violated our immigration laws.
If Fred Thompson runs. I think the Democrats and Republicans like McCain should be very afraid. Thompson seems to be the most centered of the candidates of all the people running Republican or Democrat. He's got my attention.

BCP
http://beercanpolitics.blogspot.com

Annb asks the questions as to whether we want a presidential candidate who doesn't have problems with lying or obstruction of justice. Well, I guess that eliminates Hillary from the list of possibles, unless the virtue of *Standing By Her Man* negates her tacit acceptance of his behavior.

I watched Fred Thompson give a speech in Naperville Illinois in 2003 where he as much as said that all those who opposed the President in his decision to go to war with Iraq were traitors. It left a very bad taste in my mouth.

why is the name clinton always brought up in relation to his libido ? or brought up at all ?
conservatives disliked him and his wife while he was still in arkansas,he had a horrible "record" and there was nothing rumored that wasn't TRUE and still they were elected.

as for this guy---only time will tell.

Considering all the comments from the far left to the far right and many in between, it is amazing that anyone would consider running for public office. The comments from many of these blogers is disgusting. I recently attended a Virginia Statewide Potential Political Candidates forum, which to say the least...was very informative. One of the major presentations was how to dig up dirt on your opponent. Needless to say I have no desire to get involved in politics, other than to argue that the present system of both major parties needs to change drastically. We no longer have a system of representative government...we have a system of "Paid for Politicians" that could care less about their constituents. The ones who can dig up the most dirt and raise the most money are the ones elected to public office. What a sad commentary! What I discern from all the comments about Senator Fred Thompson is that he scares the daylights out of many of these blogers. Who cares if he is an actor on Law and Order! Our real life Attorney General, FBI Director, and President have failed the public miserably. Senator Fred Thompson may be an Actor, but he is also a former prosecutor, a former Senator, and a trusted former member of Government who more than anyone is responsible for gaining the Congressional approval of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. To Mr. Fred Thompson...Go For It...You have my vote!

Given that during the 2006 elections in Tennessee that former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson was aiding and abetting the G.O.P. with the pre-election media attack on the Tennessee Senatorial candidate Harold Ford, Jr. (a former U.S. Representative who was also single at the) for simply having his picture taking with several Palyboy bunnies, "Ol' Fred" better damn sure be prepared to take hellfire for his own constitutional terms as a U.S. Senate Playboy chasing young skirts in Washington, D.C...

Thank you for responding to my post.

You understand that the comments were "tongue in cheek". The electorate has slipped to the point of discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin rather than experience and accomplishments.
The average voter fuzzes over when presented with issues and solutions. It is a TV culture (media - visual culture) and I can see the average voter in their living room saying "I know him I saw him on TV" and he was really hard on criminals, I'm sure he'll make a great president. We truly are our worse enemy - voters don't care about good works and experience, they want fixes, cheap easy to understand fixes to complex problems.

Obama has a chance because of little perceived political baggage. Hillary has Bill which is a mixed blessing but at least it makes her a known entity which she will have to overcome.

McCain is wearing me out with the Irag war issue, you can't have a good war with the people's support which is wearing thin.

Last post, thanks for the opportunity.

DKJ

David, you sure make some compelling arguments. Experience and accomplishments are unimportant. What matters is recognition from TV. The US is a sorry mess, which can only be fixed by an actor who's a fresh face. (Not by Hillary and Obama. They have no chance of winning, unlike Fred Thompson, so their opinions and policies are meaningless.) Also, underwear.

Just an addition to my above comments.

Does it really matter how many times anyone has been married? What is a conservative anyway. We're all conservative and liberal on any given issue. What is a liberal? Conservatives and liberals alike disdain attempts by the government to pry into our private lives.

We really shouldn't care about how many times someone has been married or if they wear their husbands's or wife's underwear at a press conference, sleep with a teddy bear at night or that some of them are really good at interior design.

If you haven't noticed the United States has some serious problems both foreign and domestic.

Obama and Hillary do not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.The US is in a sorry mess and no one running or pretending to run has any answers.

Like pogo said "we have met the enemy and he is us" (paraphrase). The silent majority has gotten a belly full and I see a revolt coming. Political folks are ranked just below used cars salepersons, insurance companies, the 10 most wanted and on and on. We miss the point made above, we have really serious problems and whole television programs are devoted to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears' underwear.

Fred Thompson - a breath of fresh air.

Speaking of Sen Thompson; Is is really necessary for a person running for election to have any sort of political capital or past accomplishments? Look at the current administration. What wonderful works did Bush 43 bring to the table. A c student at Yale (legacy at that), questionable military service, the reliance on a bunch of goons hovering around and giving terrible advice, can Se. Thompson do any worse. I've been a Republican since the 1968 Democratic Convention, when the Democrats melted down.

I turned 21 that year and living in the south had always had a Democratic Party slant. In Florida in 1968- you could count the registered Republicans on one hand.

My point in all this is that we need a fresh face, every Republican I see now is a tired talking head.

I think sometimes NOT having any accomplishments of note is a good thing. I'll vote for Sen. Thompson because I like him in Law and Order, I think much of the dialog we see from him is his true beliefs.

Other people running for president would kill for his name recognization, the money will roll in. I mean, are we better off than we were almost 8 years ago?

So how is two more years in the senate a grand experience? All we here is about is Obama's lack of political experience. Thompson has less political experience then Obama but you won't here the republicans take about experience now. Or will they?

If a Thompson candidacy pulls from McCain, then I say let him run...McCain is an old, beaten horse with a millstone around his neck. McCain-Feingold is that millstone.

We'll be glad to get the old guy off our backs in exchange for a fresh face that now has Chuck Norris-style appeal.

Senator Clinton's Lawyers Seek to Halt Fraud Suit, by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer, March 27, 2007

Attorneys for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) are trying to keep her out of a lawsuit that may ultimately force her to testify under oath about an alleged violation of campaign finance laws.

Peter Paul, the Hollywood businessman who is suing both Bill and Hillary Clinton, alleges that fraudulent actions by the Clintons and others cost him his multi-million dollar Internet venture.

Paul claims to have been the largest contributor to Sen. Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign, spending $1.9 million to hold a 2000 fundraising gala attended by Hollywood celebrities including Whoopi Goldberg, John Travolta and Brad Pitt.

After investigating the matter, the FEC ruled that Sen. Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored and slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine. The Clinton campaign committee also amended financial reports to show Paul's share of the production costs were understated by $721,000. The legal limit for an individual to contribute was $2,000 at the time.

Let's see. He could contribute $2,000 but actually contributed $1.9 million. Clinton was fined $35,000. That's a net profit of $1.865 million for Hillary. Maybe Hillary can use her knowledge of illegal campaign contributions to balance the budget!

So what if Fred doesn't want the presidency in the classically nauseating democratic way, neither did Reagan. The reluctant President is always better than someone like Jimmy Carter, or the collective enterprise the Clintons. If the Republicans get interested in a candidate, don't worry about the money and the organization. Lastly, I am a steadfast Republican but can't stand McCain, the angry little CO2 global warming liberal. Also people from NY turn my stomach, one of them Mx.Clinton is enough.

Gallup and Zogby show him having vaulted to third place...and he hasn*t even formed an exploratory committee, let alone announce. With momentum like that, the money and the staff will be there.

Gore...in the fall...are you serious?

I have been reading all of the comments written up until mine. Some of y'all are oxygen deprived aren't you?

I mean, a JUDGE, said they may cringe when watching Law & Order re-runs if FDT is elected...Honey, if you aren't cringing while watching already I am concerned that you wear a robe, sit on a bench and interpret the law.

People are saying he may have "issues" raising money because everyone is already months ahead of him. Uh...just because the line up for the White House is as crowded as the starting line of the NYC Marathon does not mean that there isn't PLENTY of money to find.

Personally, I think that his pragmatic approach to social conservative issues with a strong Republican stance is quite refreshing. I have been involved with grassroots organizations for a while, and I am telling you: The Republicans are going to fall heads over heals for FDT...but what is worse for the D's??? So are the Libertarians..(refer back to the 'pragmatic' part)

If he tosses his hat in, Fred Thompson need not worry, the massive amount of volunteers lining up will carry him over the top and all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

RUN FRED, RUN!!!

Early in the day I speculated here that a Thompson candidacy would draw from McCain, and asked for Republican input about that.

At 10:58 AM, "reason" suggested that Thompson was pulling from Giuliani, not McCain.

Is that suggestion supported by a poll of Republicans?

I have read both your posts. Great job!

I hope Mr. Thompson will join the race. It would be very refreshing to have some "Look you in the eye, straight talk" for a change. God knows we need it!

It's amazing how many dimmercrats jumped on this. Do you suppose they are 'askeerd'?

Your argument against him running is significantly weaker than the argument for his candidacy.

I'm very excited at the prospect of Thompson vs. Clinton, as it would mean a GOP victory.

Seems like many Republicans will continue wishing for a better candidate. What about George Pataki? Did he drop out after Rudy got in? Anyway, I can't wait to see what Newtie will do. LOL.

Thompson benefits from the fact that most Republicans are not really comfortable with the 3 front-runners, and the other candidates seem to not have broad enough appeal to win. He would be a far better candidate than Bush was, and since Hillary is an even worse campaigner than Kerry...ta da....President Thompson.

Sorry to disappoint but Thompson's not a cradle-robber.

"The 35-year-old Kehn and the 59-year-old Thompson were married at the First Congregational Church of Christ in the bride's home town of Naperville, Ill."

"For those of you astounded by the fact that social conservatives havn't fit into the place you've reserved for them in your little world view, time to get a new world view."

Oh no, they fit in perfectly with the world view that 99% of self-labeled social 'conservatives' are complete and total flaming hypocrites. It's a very sad thing, really. Truly conservative standards (on the budget, morality, "nation building," you name it) are jettison to fit the moment/candidate rather than the other way 'round.

Hear that noise? It's Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.

I wonder if Thompson's wife was a child bride like Callista Ginrich. She was 19 when she met Newt, a middle aged man. Looks like Jeri was 19 when they got married. How old do you think she was when they met? 16? 14? That's what I'd like to know.

Republicans-- the Pedaphile Party.

C'mon Mark, you know Thompson was linked to those women when he was single, not after he married Jeri Kehn who he's been married to for 5 years. Quit scratching for dirt. How about explaining what's good with your candidate's policies and we'll expound on the merits of our candidate's policies. Gee, but that would make this a political blog instead of the Post's version of ET.

re:Huckabee, I mentioned what I did about him to point out why he will not win the GOP nomination for President.

I think that I am going to pull the tactic of using conservative tactics against us. Well, the problem with a lot of the cons on the board is that they are convinced that Fred Thompson can "wipe the floor" with any Democrat in the election, even though Thompson had the advantage of good timing for his entry into public life in 1994. What does Thompson stand for that makes us so scared? I would love to see Thompson as the nominee because we would clean his clock. About the only Repbulican who remotely scares me is Mike Huckabee, but he acted with responsibility as governor of Arkansas and didn't try to run his state into the ground in order to keep a no-new-taxes pledge.

All of this focus on tax cuts shows that you conservatives are obsessed with a Novemeber 6th mindset and you are going to get whipped next year.

Also, stop saying Bush isn't a conservative. Reagan screwed you over more than Bush did. Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1983 and 1986. Bush has been tax cuts uber alles, which is what GOP orthodoxy demands.

Reagan refused to touch Social Security, except to create the SSTF as recommended by the Greenspan Commission, while Bush tried to privatize it in 2005.

Reagan cut and run from Lebanon in 1983.

Reagan granted full amnesty to all illegal immigrants in 1986.

If anything, Bush is *more* conservative than Reagan was (although I still think Reagan is the most overrated President of the 20th century, if not ever). Conservatives just don't want to admit it because it shows where their ideology has failed.

Joe says: "Like any other candidate he {Thompson} will have to prove that he has what it takes to lead our country and his party in the turbulent years ahead. "

What has he done to prove any of these things? Repubs need Fred like a hole in the head; all he has to offer is name recognition because of a tv show. This is just a trumped up pseudo-campaign designed by the media.

What the country needs is a proven leader like John McCain. He was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution in Congress; and in the Senate, he has consistently fought for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense.

Thompson is a flip-flopper just like Mitt.

It's interesting to see the WaPo still has its reputation as a left wing rag as evidence by the many commments posted here by its loyal lefty readers. Also funny to read big government socialists calling conservatives "fascist", "authoritarians", and "jackboots" - socialists who want to tell you what you can eat, where you can live, what you can drive, how much of your own money you can keep, and how many lazy Democrats you need to subsidize. These are also the same people who support hypocrites like Big Foot Gore and Not-So-Rich Edwards.

The Democrats are terrified of Fred Thompson. Can you imagine him in a nationally televised debate with Hillary? Edwards? Obama? Gore??? Thompson would mop the floor with any of these socialist nitwits.

And to all of you who think the Republicans need not run in '08 because of Bush's low poll numbers, remember this: Conservatives view Bush as Rockefeller Republican, not a Reagan Republican. His big spending policies and support for illegal immigration did him in. The Democraticly controlled Congress is already moving at warp speed to convince the public they have no ideas other than to tax more and spend more.

Clinton was attacked for having extramarital affairs before Lewinsky. Remember Gennifer Flowers? There was also a woman named Paula. So you can't argue that social conservatives haven't tried to use a candidate's personal life against him.

for all those liberals out there thinking that social conservatives are pulling their hair out over frustration with candidates having multiple marriages, I would highly suggest that you step down from your warped view of the world with evangelicals trying to run some kind of spanish inquisition in america. Social conservatives have more than often been willing to accept personal mistakes that people have made in the past, as long as they are honest and open about them.

As for the whole bill clinton thing, many liberals and the media have accepted the erroneous theory that social conservatives hated him because of the monica lewinsky affair and thus they are being hypocrites now for embracing candidates like rudy and mccain. the fact is social conservatives loathed clinton for his policies long before any scandals and lewinsky had little to do with their distaste for him.

For those of you with a short memory, Ronald Reagan, darling of conservatives, was also party to more than one marriage in his life. Carter had a great evangelical background and family, but he was pretty much disliked all around by conservatives for his policies. For those of you astounded by the fact that social conservatives havn't fit into the place you've reserved for them in your little world view, time to get a new world view.

"He was been romantically linked to a variety of women, including gorgeous country singer Lorrie Morgan, Time magazine reporter Margaret Carlson, the beautiful pundit-pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Nathans restaurant owner Carol Joynt and Washington PR executive Sydney Ferguson. His current wife, Jeri Kehn, is 24 years younger"

Another perfect guy for the We Know What's Right for Your Private Life party. Married to a trophy bimbo yet "linked romantically" to all sorts of other women. Tell us how to live, oh wise Republicans. Please, we are so lost without your great wisdom.

tarheel: If you read this blog enough, you will find that many major politicial figures are said to be gay or lesbian.

Before you blame just Democrats remember all of the Janet Reno wisecracks and jokes and the current zingers at Hilary.

After a while the always unsubstantiated charges become more sad than funny.

Republicans don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning '08. Here in Ohio we have experienced a dramatic swing from solid right of center to an increasingly solid left of center. Barring some unforeseen meltdown, it's going to be a disappointing election for Republicans, not only in the race for the WH but also the Congressional elections. Most reputable non-partisan analysts are predicting bad news for Republicans. It's still early to confidently make predictions but you might want to fasten your seatbelt, folks, cause it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

You raise fair questions. I happen to think that Sen. Thompson offers a potential candidacy well worth considering. I hope he runs. Like any other candidate he will have to prove that he has what it takes to lead our country and his party in the turbulent years ahead. No candidate can expect a free ride. The stakes are too high.

'Socialism is coming for the US, as Democrats want it'

Translation: Please, please don't give me access to healthcare or retirement .Please let me in live in a banana republic while corporations and the wealthy bleed me dry.'

Right, bush is a dem -- sorry bud, we don't want him. he's a wingnut, my friend, as are you. christ the paranoid tinfoil hat loons in this country...

tarheel:

Wake up and smell the coffee. Remember Rock Hudson? He was both seen quite a lot of attractive women and rumored to be with many others. It's called image control.

Bush as a republican, I laugh. Besides the war and cutting taxes he is almost a Democrat. Has never seen a bill he would veto, spends money like crazy, lacks any will to solve our border problem, and actually is encouraging more to come. As an Independent, both parties could care less about what happens to OUR country.
How in the world will we be able to pay for: 1) the est. 20 miilion "illegals" plus their 14 relatives of which 75% will go on wellfare because they can't speak the language and get jobs. 2) the baby boomers leaving the workforce and getting ready to take social security and medicare. The monies won't add up, and neither side wants to recognize this as the Democrats seek more votes, and the Republicans don't want to be labled "racists". REAL problems are coming, and both sides look away. Not having a real immgration policy is bringing viruses that we haven't seen in 40 years or more back into the fold because they aren't checked or screened before they get here. Our schools are spiraling downward because teachers have to deal with so many non speeking people now that it holds everyone back. The people making these decisions don't deal with any of these problems daily because they don't see it. Their chidren will have so much money that paying a huge tax increase will have no effect, and they all attend private school so that's not a problem either. What's truly needed is term limits so these fools will actual start to vote for what's right and not profitable. Murderers like Ted Kennedy, and racists like Strom Thurmond shouldn't be allowed to hold office forever.
As for Fred Thompson, I don't know how I feel about him yet, but he certainly has more expierence than Hillary and Barrack, and I'm not talking about acting. Socialism is coming for the US, as Democrats want it, and the Republicans don't try to stop it. In 20 years, we'll be France, a has been of the world, but it will have taken us only 250 years to destroy what was a great idea by our forefathers.

C'mon lefties. Now Fred's gay?! Give the hilarious off the wall bashing a break. Please post something credible at least. If anything, Fred has been known as a bit of a wolf. He was been romantically linked to a variety of women, including gorgeous country singer Lorrie Morgan, Time magazine reporter Margaret Carlson, the beautiful pundit-pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Nathans restaurant owner Carol Joynt and Washington PR executive Sydney Ferguson. His current wife, Jeri Kehn, is 24 years younger than he is and would probably rank up there with Jackie Kennedy as the most beautiful First Lady. But thanks for the laugh, anyway.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Car bombs Tuesday killed 30 people in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar and 10 others in the Anbar provincial capital of Ramadi.

The high-profile attacks were the deadliest on a day of violence that claimed the lives of at least 50 people in the war-torn country.

Clearly some of the bloggers did not see polls showing Thompson beating Clinton head-to-head last week and Thompson has not even declared. Unlike the current leaders in the GOP, Thompson's voting record is consistent with the values of the middle of the party.

I think he will be the Lefts worst nightmare. Imagine a debate between Thompson and Obama or Clinton.

Plus he is beginning to ignite the young. Websites supporting Thompson are popup and are being created by college kids. Two good examples of this are http://www.anotherRonaldReagan.com and http://www.fred08.com. This is the excitement needed to win the presidency.

Its time for the Republicans to put the first team on the field.

For those of you who want to support Fred Thompson's cadidacy, go to

www.fredisgay.com

John McCain makes me nervous - he's just a little too tightly wound. Rudy makes me even more nervous, as an ultra-lib Republicrat. Mitt...well, Mitt....well... Hmm. Fred - bright, articulate, comfortable in his own skin. I'd love to see him debate Hillary. I'd vote for Hillary if the only other choice was Lucifer. Barack - teenage love affairs usually end badly - this one will too. Go Fred - I don't see anything better and I'll probably spend my time and my money if he decides to do it. Where's the website?

you think all anonymous comments are made by one person? very busy person, i'd say... but no.

"It seems a bit ironic that the field of GOP candidates is dominatead by ones with multiple marriages"

Yes, the GOP clearly is the expert party on marriage, because they've done it so much.
Speaking of which, here is the latest (tongue-in-cheek, presented as a cafe menu) oddsmaking for "Number of Marriages on the Moral Values Party Ticket", over on the forum for the political futures trading site intrade.com.

http://forum.tradesports.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/338103657/m/5981056602

----------------

Candidates for ticket, with number of marriages contributed:

Giuliani 3 (not counting any quick trips to Vegas in drag we've not heard about)
Gingrich 3 (and he's written the book on Rediscovering God)
McCain 2 (unless you prefer 1, or 3, or...)
Thompson 2 (not counting ones on TV)
Romney 1 (it's eternal though, and soundly based on God's nuptials with Mrs. God)
Huckabee 1 (clearly a lightweight)
Brownback 1 (would the rank and file trust such an obvious rookie with the nation's moral reins?)
Rice 0 (sorry, marriage of minds with Dubya doesn't count)
Graham 0 (rumors of private Civil Union with Ken Mehlman notwithstanding)

Total marriages on ticket:

# Bid / Ask (% probability of combination)
-- ---------
6: 5 / 7 *** Our classic "Grand Slam Thank You Ma'am" special (good as ever!)
5: 14 / 17 *** Italian Ham liberally laced with a criss Crossed Dressing, served with our (NEW!) creamy cold Slaw & Order or your old favorite, the Twice-baked Pastey Powdered Waffle
4: 24 / 28 *** Atlantic Long Island Cad or Georgia Peach Chickenhawk Casserole, each with a homebaked low-fat southern Holy Roller biscuit and Oleo margarine (or enjoy our Grumpy Old Men hi-carb duo: a Twice-baked Pastey Powdered Waffle with Tentative Tennesee Toast)
3: 41 / 43 *** Choose between our new September Eleventh (tm) Hero sandwich with Rice crackers; a well-flipped easy-over New England Scramble baptized in a secret nut sauce with a hint of Red October wine; or the Twice-baked Pastey Powdered Waffle served with a Dunkin Wingnut donut
2: 8 / 10.5 *** Grumpy Old Men with rice, or Two Holy Men in a Blanket
1: .8 / 1.2 *** Browned Back Bacon on Rice doused with Mushroom Cloud gravy
0: 0.2 / 0.4 *** Rice-Graham Cracker Cobbler glazed w/ Log Cabin Republican syrup

Bon Appetit!

Anon... I saw your quote marks, others could have too if foam hadn't obscured their vision.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

The whole 'revolution' was a massive fraud, with phony numbers, made-up 'facts' and massive deficits. Just like now. It's amazing to me that some many middle-class people will defend the right of global corporations to rob them:

'Stockman's indictment yesterday for allegedly defrauding investors while he chaired Collins & Aikman, a major auto-parts maker, caused Washington insiders to reminisce about the one-time wunderkind who helped to create and then undermine President Ronald Reagan's supply-side economic 'revolution.'

"It's a shame that a guy who made such a great contribution as a member of Congress and the Reagan administration has this happening to him," said M.B. Oglesby, a former deputy chief of staff to Reagan. "He was the driver in the whole budget process in the beginning of the administration that set the tone for the tax cuts and the budget cuts."

"I have vivid memories of his misusing and misstating data and using obviously phony economic forecasts," said veteran budget analyst Stanley E. Collender. "You wonder if those were habits that stuck with him when he became a Wall Street dealmaker."

Dianne Weist played the DA on Law and Order between Stephen Hill and Fred Thompson.

The "Fairness Doctrine" has been repealed. I do not think L & O will have to edit Fred out if he runs.

"I knew anonymous had no thoughts of his own but blatant plagiarism to make points or to make himself look intelligent is pathetic. You now have no credibility as far as I'm concerned."

I'm sure the legions of anonymous posters feel duly chastised and will now slink off to unnamed corners of undisclosed locations with their non-descript tails tucked firmly between their unidentifiable legs.

apologies for not referencing Atrios. had intended to.

Yes, and that includes the nightly news.

b: It was Dianne Wiest, not Steven Hill

PS that me above. TV is not even close to reality dummies.

When does being an actor qualify someone to be a world leader. Most actor types have serious personality disorders, that's why they are actors. They want to be someone other than who they are or alternatively they have no idea what or who they are. That's an essential quality necessary to be an actor, ie, an identity crisis. That would be a detriment in a world leader in todays world.

It's interesting to see how so many Republican posters are already salivating at the prospect of Thompson entering the race. Though, their sole reasoning of "my redneck can beat any Liberal sissy" leaves a lot to be desired.

But, those Democrats who see Thompson only as an actor would do well to do some research on the guy. He's been in the public and political spotlight since Watergate.

Bebe:
You're making political statements in a vacuum. While I get that you WANT Fred to be a frontrunner, I encourage you to consider factoring some measure of reality into your calculation. As much as you and others may not want to deal with polls or other markers, time and time again they have often been accurate in gauging the mood of the electorate.

So it's all well and good to blithely extol the virtues of your favorite candidate but at some point it might behoove you to step back and take a broader look at strategy. It's kind of like running a business. You have to have your finger on the pulse of your target market and familiarize yourself with their expectations. To sell a product without taking their demands into account is like running for office without assessing the pulse of the electorate, which are the people who will decide whether they like the product enough to vote for it. Tom Vilsack was keen enough to make that determination early on and remove himself from the race before he expended valuable resources.

So, no, Bebe, I'm neither "frightened" nor feeling any other irrational emotion about '08. You see, I'm not making claims based solely on what I WANT, I'm analyzing historical data and giving ample consideration to a variety of factors that influence my theories or conclusions. In the end I may be wrong but in the meantime I'm not merely arguing my emotions or substituting crossed fingers for rational hypotheses

can anyone name the l&o prosecutor who was da before fred?

Don't think you can count "that guy from law and order" as name recognition.

It was Stephen Hill, BTW

Anonymous poster is a plagiarist! His long wingnuttia post earlier is word-for-word from today's www.atrios.blogspot.com. I knew anonymous had no thoughts of his own but blatant plagiarism to make points or to make himself look intelligent is pathetic. You now have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. A puppet plagiarizing other views from a liberal blog that collects funds for Democratic candidates. Sad, very sad. Well, whether you agree with us or not, at least most of us have minds of our own.

Your "librul" media at work: Very interesting post.

It's obvious that for many Fix posters Fred offers what they hope is an unsullied choice. Forget Straight Talk has-beens, ego-driven mayors, flip-flopping empty suits.... they want a gravel-voiced actor who colors in the boxes on the right.

But before they sell their souls, maybe they should ask, can the country stand 4 to 8 more years of a Bush-type administration?

The answer is "yes" only if you want to live in a third-world North American Union.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I have never been more ready to give money to a campaign in my life. As amtatter of fact I have never given money to a campaign but if FDT runs I'll give money and time.

"She is a horrible candidate, not to mention a horrible person.

Posted by: gitarre | March 27, 2007 12:13 PM"

Casting stones as usual.

The Wingnuttia Hard Core is now down to 25% on every poll I've seeen.

Geroge K:
You seemed a bit frightened at the thought of Fred running in '08. Unless your party can come up with anyone better, they do not stand a chance against him if he DOES decide to run. Do not underestimate him...
I have heard him speak on numerous occassions. He is very intelligent, articulate and has an unmatched command of an audience. He will attract conservatives, independents, and conservative democrats. I guess you are choosing to ignore the recent polls that place him third behind Giulliani and McCain and has yet to announce his candidacy or raise a cent towards it, while the others have already spent millions. This is the opinion of a very moderate republican in TN by way of California.

Republicans will rally to him, and Independents will love him. Hillary will lose, with about 45 percent in the general, and HALF of those voting for her will be holding their noses. She is a horrible candidate, not to mention a horrible person.

And then we have this USA Today poll, taken over the weekend (exactly when Stengel and his colleagues were warning Democrats that Americans would be angry if they pursued Karl Rove):

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?
Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%

Just compare those facts to the wild assertions made by Stengel and friends on MSNBC:
Mr. STENGEL: I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance. That's not what voters want to see.
Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: So instead of like an issue like the war where you can say it's bigger than all of us, its more important than politics, this is politics.

Mr. STENGEL: Yes, and it's much less. It's small bore politics.

O'DONNELL: The Democrats have to be very careful that they look like they're not the party of investigation rather than legislation in trying to change things.'

Andy (8:22 posting) et al: Thompson voted FOR the war resolution in 2002 (he was in the Senate until January 2003, recall). Same vote as Hillery. So how can he use that in an "anti-war" position?

'He is the President right out of central casting. '

precisely -- and yet, wingnut, that seems to be exactly what you want. another phony frontman for the same cast of neocon fantasists.

Blarg -- interesting stuff. I'll have to look into this more as well. My instinct, however, is that there is probably a distinction between something produced previously for purely commercial use and something produced at the time of the 30/60 day ban you were talking about. At any rate, fascinating topic.

Oh the hypocrisy!

James Webb was castigated by the rightwingnuts for "being off writing novels and screenplays" but this guy is ok even though he was "off acting"?

Wow, "enlightened" supporters of Fred Thompson are now calling Senator Obama "osama" and referring to hillary as a "wicked witch." Truly the party of christian values. Good thing you folks are around, b/c I used to think that being a good christian meant NOT smearing people with baseless attacks. Good to know I was wrong about that: I'll have to chat about that when I'm at church on Sunday.

Personally, I think Thompson probably would make a strong candidate for the GOP. He meets all the litmus tests that now dominate the GOP primaries but he doesn't SEEM as terrifying as the other ideologically acceptable candidates on the GOP side. Plus, the guy is an effective communicator and at least somewhat charismatic. I gotta say though, I don't see him competing in ANY states that GWB lost in.

In light of the fact that several states Bush II won are now much more receptive to the Democratic message than they were in '04, I think nominating a candidate who can't expand the battle ground states at all is a risky strategy. Everyone has talked for 7 years about how Democrats can't compete in ton of states. But really, given how close the last two elections have been electorally, the same argument applies to the GOP. Sure, they've won but not by much. You would think that BOTH Parties would want a candidate who can expand the parties' geographic reach. Thompson doesn't do that, IMO.

Let's not forget that Fred Thompson, a prosecutor before he became a senator, has a rather odd view of conflict of interest.

While he was STILL a sitting senator on the Senate Armed Services committee (among others), he accepted a role -- which he still plays -- as the District Attorney on NBC's "Law & Order." NBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric, a MAJOR defense contractor.

One hand washes the other, right?

You libs are scared to death of Fred Thompson. If he gets in he will kick your butts and you know if.

Fred and J.C. Watts or Condi vs the "Wicked Witch" and Osama Obama Hussein.
No contest!

If Fred Thompson is the President can we get Sam Waterston for AG?

The question for the right is, which candidate buys the Entire Package of Wingnuttia? Is it Fred? Is he Pure enough? Because any deviation is Heresy:

'It's possible that the parallel universe created by the Right has gotten so complex that it's become exclusionary. It seems that members of the movement Right demand that their candidates buy into the Entire Package of Wingnuttia. This isn't simply political purism, it's about validating a worldview. There are all these articles of faith in wingnuttia which have been given to them by the wingnut noise machine, and failure to embrace them all is a signal that you aren't really part of the club.

But this wingnut worldview has gotten complex and sprawling. Its cast of characters, bizarre understanding of history, and policy positions have grown and expanded so that only obsessed true believers can really feel a part of it. They've established an entire mythology, and its adherents have become cultlike.

The noise machine still has a great impact on our mainstream discourse, but only the real hardcore wingnuts can really identify with the full wingnut package anymore. The beast has grown too large.'

To those concerned about L&O and the fairness doctrine, don't forget he'd also have to give his lucrative job subbing for Paul Harvey on ABC radio.

I don't know how savvy Thompson is, but he's got to know that running for the presidency against well-established candidates--no matter how flawed they are--would be a very uphill battle. And he doesn't strike me as having that kind of toughness.

Name recognition would give him an entree, but his ties to Libby and Cheney would be strong negatives in the general election, even is they helped him in primaries.

I have been to Fred Thompsons website. You can see his bio, and check how he voted on all issues. He is a true conservative, without being radical. He is against abortion, gun control, gay marriage, is fiscally conservative, and he is the Democrats worst nightmare. He has name recognition they can only dream about. In the Debates he will turn the Democrat every way but loose. He is the President right out of central casting. He will run, and he will beat any candidate they field. Beating the whinny woman, and Barak Hussein Obama will be a slam dunk.

I have been to Fred Thompsons website. You can see his bio, and check how he voted on all issues. He is a true conservative, without being radical. He is against abortion, gun control, gay marriage, is fiscally conservative, and he is the Democrats worst nightmare. He has name recognition they can only dream about. In the Debates he will turn the Democrat every way but loose. He is the President right out of central casting. He will run, and he will beat any candidate they field. Beating the whinny woman, and Barak Hussein Obama will be a slam dunk.

"it is very well known that he is gay"

Anonymous: got any sources to back that up? Does Fred have a stack of Judy Garland albums in a P-town apartment or is there something more specific? He does refer to "gay marriage" as a states-rights issue which evades the issue in the eyes of ultraorthodox conservatives.

Bebe:
Maybe Fred would eat Gore's lunch in Tenn but he certainly won't beat him in the Blue States or the swing states. A lot of you conservatives completely underestimate the electorate's discontent with the Republican Party. You may want to consider monitoring some of the recent polling data which shows fewer people identifying with the Republican Party and more independents leaning toward the Democratic Party. This is not '00 or '04, and this is not your father's Oldsmobile. Do you truly believe all the scandals, indictments, and convictions of the party in power will have no impact?

The mood of the country has changed dramatically since '00 and '04 and conservatives are spouting off like it's all just business as usual. I suspect it will take the loss of the White House and additional seats in the House and Senate in '08 before Republicans finally wake up and realize it's time to reinvent their wheel.

Your approach to the '08 election reminds me of Stephen Colbert's line from the White House Correspondent's Dinner, in which he said, ""When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday -- no matter what happened Tuesday." So believe you me, rightwingers, something happened on Tuesday and Wednesday ain't going to be status quo...

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn

By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East," he commented.

"Moscow must exert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he concluded.

Resources:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
Webster G. Tarpley is a journalist. Among other works, he has published an investigation on the manipulation of the Red Brigades by the Vatican's P2 Suite and the assassination of Aldo Moro, a non-authorized biography of George H. Bush, and more recently an analysis of the methods used to perpetrate the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Well, here we go folks. One of our vessels will be 'attacked' and bam bam thank you ma'am, WWIII. nuclear. It had to happen on the bush/cheney watch, they had it planned all along:

'BOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS IN THE GULF (AP) -- The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks.

The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more than a hundred planes, were certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline.'

Fred has definitely caught the eye of the conservative online community and those GOPers (a large number) distraught with their current crop of choices. But nhe needs to get in now to have any shot at actually winning.
http://political-buzz.com/

And yes, it is very well known that he is gay. I don't care myself, but it will come out, as it were. If the Repugs don't mind, then they should shut up about gay marriage.

'Thompson very well could win the republican nomination because he is true conservative that would not back down from the liberal media.'

I see the koolaid drinkers are out in force for Fred... it figures that the 'small government' folks are magnetically drawn to the whomever is the biggest fascist. How they love them their authoritarians!

This man is the archetype of a DC insider - a back room fixer, a longtime member of the Bush/Baker/Cheney/Rumsfeld neocon cabal. He's Libby's biggest backer and pushing for a pardon - the ability of Republicans to operate outside the law.

He's very dangerous indeed. Everything about him is an act -there's not a shred of moderation there. Like Boy George, he will fool some people into thinking he's reasonable. But not only would he be a total retread of bush policies, he might even be more effective at subverting democracy... something I'm sure the Cons are dying for.

I think he's got the blackest jackboots in the republican field...

I find these threads on various candidates amusing as everybody ignores the elephant pooping in the corner. GWB, Mr.30% has poisoned the well for any Republican candidate in 2008 and probably 2012. If I were an ambitious Republican, I'd aim at 2016 to allow some time for Democratic fatigue to set in.

Chris Cillizza and the MSM shy away from mentioning rumors, but if Thompson runs, the bloggers and netroots will make plenty of noise about the well-known rumor that Thompson is a closeted gay man. Hypocrisy, anyone?

As a Tennessean, I would love to see Al Gore run againt Fred Thompson. Fred would eat his lunch!

Thompson would make a great addition to the Republican field. When his name is included in polls, he already take alot away from Guiliani's support. He will really have to get on the ball quickly to raise enough money to be competitive, though. That will be the toughest challenge, a challenge I'm not certain he can overcome. He may have to rely on Bill Frist's political machine to raise the cash to do so. The question is will Frist be willing to help in that way?

I have noticed in early primary states, Guiliani's poll numbers are going down and McCain's and Romney's are going up. Name recognition is only going to take him so far, and McCain and Romney has organization and money. Right now, McCain is leading the pack in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and has key endorsements in both states. Guiliani is in 2nd in both states, with Romney's poll numbers rising. In Iowa McCain and Guiliani are tied with 29% of the vote each, where Guiliani is down from 41% in last month's poll. I've saw no new polling for the Nevada primary. In national survey's Guiliani is ahead, but in key early primary states where the campaigning has began, McCain seems to be the front runner.

On the democratic side, Clinton leads national polls. However, in Iowa Edwards has built a great organization and is polling ahead by just a few points. Edward's also has a great organization in his home state of South Carolina. Clinton still leads in New Hampshire, but Obama is polling well there. In Nevada, last month Clinton was way ahead. But again, I've seen nothing from primary polls this month.

So, to me, it seems that McCain and Clinton are the front runners but Romney and Edwards are running great races and are gaining alot of traction. I think Guiliani and Obama are on their way down the ladder.

Thompson looks a like sturgeon in that photo. Against John Edwards, Obama or, heck, even Hilary, it will seem like a replay of Nixon vs. JFK. . . and yeah, if this is the best the GOP can come up with, they are in dire straits indeed.

No, it's Ron Paul has the netroots. Don't beleive, ask Pajamas Media. They won't let Paul compete in their online polls because they are swamped by Paul's supporters.

Thompson's become the favorite of many Beltway conservatives and professional activists because no one else excites them and they fear a GOP wipeout in November if they nominate.

Really, when it comes to internet activism and raising money, the leftists website dwarf what the right does.

Thompson very well could win the republican nomination because he is true conservative that would not back down from the liberal media. He would speak his mind and be upfront and honest. He is a "what you see is what you get" guy, and I think that would be refreshing compared to the other candidates.

Thompson very well could win the republican nomination because he is true conservative that would not back down from the liberal media. He would speak his mind and be upfront and honest. He is a "what you see is what you get" guy, and I think that would be refreshing compared to the other candidates.

Blarg, I'm fairly sure that Thompson averages less than 60 seconds of time in the typical L&O episode in which he appears to utter pithy, highly ironic statements. Maybe they could just edit those out for the duration of the campaign season?

As if to provide support for my remark about cancer, it turns out that Tony Snow is seriously ill. Best wishes to Mr. Snow and his family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700828.html

Nixon, Bush, CIA assassinated JFK? Gore could win? Are you kidding me? Can the libs not be intellectually honest for once? I like Thompson, and I also am intrigued with Edwards.

Here's an article about whether Fahrenheit 9/11 violated election law.
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001457.html

"One of the core campaign finance provisions of the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prevents corporations or labor unions from spending corporate or union funds on 'electioneering communications.' These are broadcast advertisements aired within 30 days of primaries or party conventions or 60 days of the general election that feature a candidate for federal office."

The question is whether an episode of L&O featuring Thompson counts as an advertisement just because he's in it. It's kind of a stretch. But I'm sure that if Thompson is a candidate and those L&O episodes are aired around the election, someone will try to sue.

By the way, I was joking in my original post when I said that TV executives would oppose a Thompson run. But this is a potential legal issue for his campaign.

I sense a bit of fear in this writer over Thompson and perhaps Thompson's bid for a presidential run. I say, "Go Fred!!!!" Anything to make Obama and Hillary upchuck and run for cover.

Colin and JD, I'm not exactly sure of the details. I don't know if it's a real law or just something that networks do to avoid favoring a candidate. Conan O'Brian had some jokes about how he couldn't show Schwarzenegger movie clips during the California governor race a couple years ago. Then the day after the election, he showed a bunch of clips because he finally could.

I also recall that in 2004, there was an issue with showing Michael Moore's movie before the election. Some conservative groups felt that Fahrenheit 9/11 was anti-Bush advertising, so networks couldn't show it. Again, I don't know if there was a specific election law at issue, or just general fairness. I'll see what I can find.

the gop always goes for actors over substance. they may b!tich that democratic actors talk, but hell, the gop elects them..

if he runs, the bushies will flock to him, like geeze to stale bread.

Fred Thompson is good reason to bring back the notion of literacy tests for voters. Give us a break, Chris; this stuffed shirt is an actor with amature acting and even worse political abilities. If the average GOP voter had the brains of a pet rock, people like Thompson woldn't even be under consideration. What we need to do is monitor people who watch soap operas or American Idol and do everything possibe to see they don't vote or breed.

George K... Well said.

BDStauffer, You're kind of scary. Your "guy" Thompson gets your vote because he made the smooth move of becoming an actor instead of staying in the Senate (and trying to make a difference) thus rising "above the fray" (not taking a stand on issues). You do know the vote is for POTUS, not a casting call.

If winning is all that matters then I guess what a candidate believes, how they will govern and how much trouble they'll get the nation into doesn't matter.... W being a painful case in point.

However, I must admit that Thompson is probably the most "attractive" candidate currently on the GOP horizon and might gather a lot of steam before he is outed as a W retread.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"his failure to observe publicly that Bush2 is an obvious closet-queen doesn,t indict him as a fellow-traveller"

OMG Will, you've buried the needle on the whack-job meter...

Blarg, interesting point about the Law n Order syndications being banned with a Thompson candidacy. That seems like an antiquated law (since there's so much more outlet for advocacy than just TV these days), but I guess I understand it.

Does that mean that Gore's movie cant be shown anywhere as well, if he runs/is drafted? What about Rudy's SNL appearances? Hell, even McCain's been on SNL a couple times. Seems like such a slippery slope. Where does it end?

Seems like this would be an easy 1st amendment slam dunk case - for my money, the government should not be in the business of restricting speech, ESPECIALLY political speech.

Blarg -- How could the government preclude television stations from using content that they own the rights to? I can't imagine that that's constitutional. At the very least that sounds like a regulatory taking that the government would have to compensate networks/stations for.

Do you have any links on this topic? It would actually make a fascinating legal article if what you're saing is accurate.

Thanks in advance

The case for Fred Thompson:

quote:

Call It Treason: Flake-Gutierrez Bill Immigration Insanity And Merger With Mexico

By Juan Mann

The latest nation-destroying amnesty scheme of H.R.1645--the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act--was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 22 by Treason Lobby mouthpieces Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).

..

And there's an unbelievable aw-shucks-just-give-it-to-'em-anyhow standard of proof for the bill's main illegal alien amnesty in "Title VI--Legalization of Undocumented Individuals." Section 602(a)(4)--Adjustment of Status for Conditional Nonimmigrants--explains that

"[i]t is the sense of the Congress that the requirement under this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner that recognizes and takes into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due to the undocumented status of the alien."

With that kind of standard, H.R. 1645 is a fraud magnet and an illegal alien-chasing immigration lawyer's dream.

Vdare.com

end quote

All the better that another lightweight emerges - opening the door for a powerful independent like Bloomberg to step in by running on a National Election Reform Platform.
www.DraftMichael.com
www.IndependentAmerica.org

If Thompson runs, then I think that election finance laws will bar TV stations from broadcasting any shows he's in. (Something similar happened when Ahnold ran in California a few years ago; stations couldn't show his movies, because it was like free advertising.)

Law & Order is heavily syndicated. If Thompson runs, then a lot of stations will need to change their programming. And the studio that syndicates L&O will lose a lot of money. So I'd expect to see a lot of TV executives arguing against a Thompson candidacy.

Law school was a great Vietnam draft-dodge for Fred and his ilk. Gingrich knocked up his math teacher to accomplish the same end, and, of course, W. had his Congressman-father cheat him into the then Vietnam-free National Guard. Thompson went on to work for the Watergate Committee yet never repudiates the Nixon/Bush/CIA cabal that assassinated JFK to keep us in the pope,s Vietnam...some patriot...some man. Must think because he fathered children that his failure to observe publicly that Bush2 is an obvious closet-queen doesn,t indict him as a fellow-traveller. Birds of feather.

I think that people make way too much of the multiple-marriages issue. In today's world, it's not all that relevant or unusual to be married 2x, or even 3x.

I expect we'll be in the same place on drug use in a decade - it won't be a blemish on the right candidate. Now cigarettes, however... (sorry Obama)

I think if the candidate is right, even the hardcore social conservatives (of which I'm not) would vote for their 80% guy. At least they did with Reagan, twice.

Eric: I'd amend your comment to say "It must be frustrating to be a GENUINE social conservative these days." The GOP is infested with 'conservatives' who trot out all sorts of reasons for not giving a darn about the galloping budget deficit while a R sits in the WH. It's to the point where if we had a slate of female GOP candidates they would probably all have had abortions and the typical Faux News viewer would have to swallow that blatant contradiction as well.

It seems a bit ironic that the field of GOP candidates is dominatead by ones with multiple marriages, and that's supposedly the party of pro-family values. But the liberal Democrats seem to included candidates with one-time marriages, flawed though they may be. I'm not sure what that means, but I do find it interesting. It must be frustrating to be a social conservative these days.

Fred Thompson I think is just the sort of guy we need. I think he did a very shrewd move in walking away from the Senate to be an actor again. He got himself onto a very popular show where he now has excellent name recognition, and unlike in real life, he doesn't make mistakes on the show. Moreover, he's been above the fray, and is untarnished. If he runs, he's got my vote.

I could definitly see him as a VP candidate. With no southerners in the top tier of candidates (sorry Huckabee) the GOP would really need to shore up the southern vote somehow and Thompson would help with that. He would work for Guiliani, or Romney. But would it be enought to beat an Edwards/Richardson ticket?

It's the Democrats race to lose, especially in view of the fact that the leading Republican candidates are all essentially pro-occupation. In fact, Republicans are banking the whole banana on their "tough on terrorism" platform, which is a retooled version of their "tough on crime" spiel from the 70s. However, with all the shenanigans the Bush administration has pulled it'll take more than the typical Republican tough guy approach to retain the White House.

Americans want a statesperson who exhibits dignity and honor and courageously embraces diplomacy and cooperation, not some yahoo promising to go kill terrorists so the boogieman doesn't kill us in our sleep. That's getting a little old at this point, especially since we haven't made much progress beyond persuading detainees who have been tortured by years and years of depravation and mind numbing isolation to confess to virtually anything we suggest.

Prediction: When Gore declares in the fall, he will sweep the electorate off their feet, win the presidency, and the nation can begin to move toward healing.

Based on the picture, I'd say Thompson needs to avoid harsh lighting ("makeup!") because it makes him look old. BUT in comparison to McCain, who looks like he should be sitting in a wheelchair with a plaid blanket covering his legs, he's a bloody spring chicken.

"...bad medical science?" WTF does that mean? Is this a new code phrase for "life begins at conception?" He goes on to say "We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that." If by 'process' he is referring to democracy (i.e., voting) then a woman's right to choose (in most States) is perfectly safe. Somehow I don't think that's what he has in mind.

I read the Faux News interview. "I've been involved in national security issues and things of that nature since I've been out of the Senate." Oooohh, so does that mean that Sam Waterson can run for office too? He's been appearing in TD Waterhouse commercials so apparently that makes him an expert in economics, international business and free trade. I wonder if he'd be an R or a D? Hard to say since his character seems politically ambiguous. A high-level D prosecutor is almost an oxymoron. Thompson in the prosecutor's office is type casting.

In print Thompson looked good. He dealt with the questions effectively. He denies trying to fill the conservative slot but one look at his positions and it's obvious that's exactly what he is planning to do. How many cures for cancer could be generated with all the money that's being donated to candidates who will not win their party's nomination?

If Thompson wins, will I ever be able to watch Law & Order again without wincing?

This is the best example of a media driven non-event,that I've seen in a long time. If Thompson wasn't involved in a successful TV series on NBC, there wouldn't be any of this at all. The MSM is now tired of the existing stable of wannabes and can't generate or maintain enough interest over the course of the next 18 MONTHS to justify coverage. Sooo they go to "tele-fred" and start to talk up his name. If he declares, his candidacy will be over before the next news cycle, and he'll end up like that character from Iowa whose name gets mixed up with the pickle company, selling out to the highest front-runner eager for some star creds.....

How about Thompson for VP to Rudy, providing the conservative bona fides and 'gravitas'. Now before you haters start in on Cheney, remember the audience we talking about here: Thompson is acceptable to almost any GOPer, and most of the non-politically engaged would like to have a movie star up there backing up the 9/11 rock star (Rudy).

For those who didn't see him on FNS a couple weeks ago, he crushed it, hit the ball out of the park.

Thompson also is raising money for Scooter Libby's defense fund and believes Libby should be pardoned immediately. Do we really want a President who thinks lying and obstruction of justice is no big deal?

Why is Thompson better then say Romney in his 'evolution' of views? Why is Thompson's two marriages less damaging then Guiliani's three? How is his 8 years in the senate with no real solid accomplishments presidential material? Answer, It isn't.
There are two reasons the GOP wants this guy to run. One is because he would look good on stage. He is tall and has a comanding presence. A side by side with Hillary would be ammusing to watch.

The second is that he didn't vote for the war. AND no matter what the Republican base says, if they want to beat the Democrats in next election they will need someone who can back-pedal on the war. Now, in the primaries he can say that he would have supported the war. Then in the general he can add, but "I think things were done very wrong and If I had been in the Senate I would have changed those things". Now this is all BS but it doesn't matter because people might beleive him.
I mean it is pretty much what Hillary is trying to pull off too.

If Thompson runs, the Republican field would be enhanced. He has a long history of accomplishment and competence as an attorney and as a Senator.

I would wish him well in the process; yet I suspect his votes would come [largely] at Sen. McCain's expense.
And John McCain, despite his recent pandering to the Christian right and his lonely and unpopular support for escalation in Iraq, is also a candidate with a long history of competence and accomplishment - and of a demonstrated love for nation over party and special interest.

I would be interested in any responses; but as to the narrow issues of Thompson's effect within the field I would be most interested in Republican responses outside the northeast.

Thompson has the netroots and is polling in double digits nationally without much attention.

Every recent online poll had him with more votes than all others combined... probably using no paid stuffers, unlike the other campaigns.

Hoping for Barack or Hillary? This guy is your worst nightmare. Maybe Edwards could stand a chance, if he didn't lose all the soccer mom's this week.

And of course he's a wonderful neo-con/globalist mix... showing up at the Libby trial and groomed by Howard Baker. The fascists will love him.

Every time I'm frustrated by the imperfections of the Democratic candidates, I look at the GOP field and get a reality check. If Fred Thompson is the best they have among McCain, Romney and Guiliani the GOP is in sad shape indeed.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com