Fred Thompson Confirms Prez Bid

[Kangaroo]

McCain's bid is now officially spiked. The other front runners have too much baggage to make a credible bid. Thompson should get the nod barring any health issues. His Reaganesque folksie charm and no-bull style should easily torpedo the Hillary/Obama-twisting-in-the-wind-which-way-are-the-polls-pointing-now-I-cannot-say-what-I-really-want style of political spinelessness.

[ethics]

I thought he was waiting till Sept.6?

[Kangaroo]

Yesterday was his announcement that he will be announcing officially. It is a recent bullshit process, but he's in.

[Andy]

I seriously hope he pick up juggernaut-like steam here real quick.

All the hemmin-and-hawin over whether he's in or not is rather disheartening.

And I could really care less if he's got a (R) or if he had a (D) before his name, he's the first one I've seen in a looong time that has something a multitude of past prospective CiC's haven't had.

Common sense.

[Swamp Fox]

I'm voting for him.

[tke711]

And how exactly are you, as a Canadian, going to vote in the U.S. election?

[Domh]

And how exactly are you, as a Canadian, going to vote in the U.S. election?

Yeah. Besides... a black woman named Fred doesn't stand a chance.

[mikeky]

I noticed the editorials today have already labelled his entry as "ho-hum".

[Andy]

I noticed the editorials today have already labelled his entry as "ho-hum".

My take on the MSM's lackluster attitude with Fred is this...

He's nearly drama-free.

He can't sell papers like Billary's recent problems with mega-millions contributers wanted on 15 year old felony charges, Obama shoving his foot in his mouth (again), Silky pony's latest hair and hypocrisy escapades, Rudy getting pissed on by pissed off Firefighters, McCain's lack of reality that he lost this election years ago or "ZOMG a Mormon daring to run!"

In a way he's kinda smart to hang back and let everyone sling the poo on the walls at first.

[Swamp Fox]

And how exactly are you, as a Canadian, going to vote in the U.S. election?

I'll say I'm an illegal, get amnesty, and vote. Simple as that.

[Copzilla]

I noticed the editorials today have already labelled his entry as "ho-hum".

Any candidate that is ho-hum to editors is sure to be a public favorite. The editors will pretty much automatically dislike him for his moderate / conservative views. What else would you expect an editorial to say?

[cdw]

http://www.imwithfred.com/

Wow. Will be just like watching TV. Law and Order style, lol.

[joseftu]

Bleah. An empty suit. A lobbyist, for pity's sake. Another tiny-brained gruff-speaker. Take a look at Jfcjrus' questions in another thread. This is what you call a leader? Even without the capital letters.

Shit, I'd rather see Giuliani as the Republican candidate. At least he's got a brain. At least there's some substance there. And at least he really is a moderate.

Thompson a moderate? Where's the evidence of that. He's straight right-wing, all the way down the line, on every issue. He's a hard-core conservative.

(EDIT--actually, if the issue is trying to get a win for the Democrats, then Thompson's perfect. He doesn't have a chance in hell. If the issue is having at least an acceptable opinion of the intelligence of the electorate...then, please, don't nominate this guy.)

[Fiona]

I haven't been paying attention again. I see the thread titles and I took note...

Fred Thompson

(Law & Order!?) *scratches head

hmmmmm

Fred Thompson super-conservative?

hmmmm

scratches head....


there you go... that's my knowledge.

WTF?

Those of you that support him... tell me why. Just one example. Don't hurt my pretty little blonde head. ;)

[Andy]

He's a hard-core conservative.


Is that the new definition of someone who is actually more of a self proclaimed Federalist who wants to lower taxes and have less tax and spend big-Government?

I guess in "hard-core" Democrat's eyes, he's like garlic to a vampire then, huh?

[Copzilla]

Thompson a moderate? Where's the evidence of that. He's straight right-wing, all the way down the line, on every issue. He's a hard-core conservative.

Oh, in that case I like him even more. :P

Seriously, every issue? What's his stance on stem cell research? I'm pretty sure he's in favor of it.

I don't think he's 100% sold on many issues that are hard-core conservative. I think he tends to take a more hands-off approach on some of them, which is how a POTUS should be. His stance on Roe v. Wade, for instance, was that it was bad law and should be a state decision, but that he would never have signed onto a ban bill. He opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." - F. Thompson.

Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He says it should be a state decision.

He's been moderate on immigration. He's voted for and against amnesty, depending on which bill, what it stated, who was given amnesty. He's in favor of border security.

Hard core conservative on every issue? Mighty broad brush there, Joe. Wiki is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson)

But honestly Joe, when you're as hard-core liberal as you are, everyone that swings right will seem hard-core conservative. Thompson is not nearly as much a nutjob as Kucinich. Thompson does take some moderate stances, and is why I labeled him moderate / conservative.

[Fiona]

Thank you for all that Copz (though not directed at me. :) ) It's very helpful. Now I see I have some reading to do. From what YOU post. He sounds like a level headed guy, who votes much the way I think. But I won't know till I read and see more.

[MNeedham73]

http://www.imwithfred.com/

Wow. Will be just like watching TV. Law and Order style, lol.

I just want to hear him say "Russians don't take a dump without a plan" to Putin :P

[joseftu]

Is that the new definition of someone who is actually more of a self proclaimed Federalist who wants to lower taxes and have less tax and spend big-Government?

I guess in "hard-core" Democrat's eyes, he's like garlic to a vampire then, huh?
It's not my assessment, Andy. Look at where he stands on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm).

Call him a "Federalist" if you want--I know he's very comfortable with the term--but don't try to call him a moderate!

[joseftu]

But honestly Joe, when you're as hard-core liberal as you are, everyone that swings right will seem hard-core conservative. Thompson is not nearly as much a nutjob as Kucinich. Thompson does take some moderate stances, and is why I labeled him moderate / conservative.
I'm proud of the liberal label, and happy to claim it. But it doesn't make me blind. Giuliani's a moderate. Thompson ain't. And "nutjob"...no, he's not a nutjob. But he's definitely a second-rater. Haven't we had enough of that kind of president yet?

[Copzilla]

Thank you for all that Copz (though not directed at me. :) ) It's very helpful. Now I see I have some reading to do. From what YOU post. He sounds like a level headed guy, who votes much the way I think. But I won't know till I read and see more.

Yeah, that's kind of what I get from him. I don't agree with all his stances, but he's a "get your government mitts off me" type of guy, and seems to always have been. I prefer that stance over the meddlers who would socialize our country and disarm our population.

[Copzilla]

The point, Joe, is that your labeling him a "hard-core conservative on every issue" is quite frankly incorrect, and DOES indicate a blind bias. I labeled him a moderate / conservative, meaning that he takes some moderate positions and some conservative positions, and that is true. I qualified that. You haven't refuted it, you're sticking to labels.

If Thompson is a hard-core conservative, then Hillary is a hardcore liberal. Except that she's not. She's a moderate / liberal.

You may label him a second-rater if you choose; I may think the same of Obama.

[joseftu]

The point, Joe, is that your labeling him a "hard-core conservative on every issue" is quite frankly incorrect, and DOES indicate a blind bias. I labeled him a moderate / conservative, meaning that he takes some moderate positions and some conservative positions, and that is true. I qualified that. You haven't refuted it, you're sticking to labels.
I guess you missed my link? I guess you didn't click on the image attached? It's not my label. It's a source much more objective, and much more reliable, than wikipedia. Take a look at it. That's where I got the term from, not my own guess.

But maybe that's not enough? The American Conservative Union gave him an 86.1 lifetime voting score--that's less conservative than folks like Frist, sure--he's not a nutjob--he's not an extremist. But hard-core to me means that he's a solid, straight on, conservative. There isn't anything liberal about him, or even moderate. He's a true conservative. There are more conservative candidates out there--some of them (cough-Tancredo-cough) actual nutjobs.. It's not blind bias, it's simple fact. The guy is a hardcore conservative. That's not an insult (at least not in your book!), but it's where he stands from an objective perspective (again, not mine).

Finally, compared to Mr. Thompson's lifetime ACU rating of 86.1 and Mr. Frist's 87.8, worth noting is Arizona Sen. John McCain's 82.3. Also worth noting are the lifetime ACU ratings of so-called "second-tier" Republican presidential candidates: Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, 94.0; California Rep. Duncan Hunter, 92.0; Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, 97.8; and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, 82.3. source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070623/EDITORIAL/106230006/1013) (note, that's the Washington Times, not the Post).



You may label him a second-rater if you choose; I may think the same of Obama.Fair enough. As I said, from the perspective of getting a Democrat in office, I hope the Republicans do nominate him.

[tke711]

(EDIT--actually, if the issue is trying to get a win for the Republicans, then Clinton/Obama are perfect. They don't have a chance in hell. If the issue is having at least an acceptable opinion of the intelligence of the electorate...then, please, don't nominate those two.)

Corrected it for ya Joe. ;)

Actually, attacking Thompson's intelligence is a PURE sign of your bias against him. He's very intelligent, probably more so then all the other's running for the nomination. If you don't agree with his politics, say so, but claiming he's not intelligent is just more partisan crap. I know...you didn't call him unintelligent, but claiming he doesn't have "an acceptable opinion of the intelligence of the electorate," is just a fancier way of calling him stupid or out of step.

I take it as a great sign for Thompson that liberal columnists and op/ed writers have been going after him for months. Their afraid of the guy and have been busy trying to dismiss and discredit him before he even announces.

Thompson may or may not win the nomination, but I think he's got a decent chance. He's charismatic, something that's desperately been missing for almost 8 years, and he says what he means and sticks to his beliefs instead of polls (which has been desperately been missing since what, Reagan?).

No matter what, he's candidacy will be good for American's if for no other reason that he'll call the other candidates on their bullshit.

[joseftu]

Corrected it for ya Joe. ;)
Oh, thank you, sooo much!

Actually, attacking Thompson's intelligence is a PURE sign of your bias against him. He's very intelligent, probably more so then all the other's running for the nomination.
Utter bullshit, if you'll excuse the expression. Read the profile of him (quite flattering, too) in the July 23 New Republic. "Common sense" and "folksy"...that's how even his supporters describe him. That ain't smarts, in fact it's code for the opposite. That's how we got our current president--preferring "regular guy-ness" to intelligence. He's brighter than Bush, no doubt. But he's not got the drive, the ambition, the intellectual curiosity, that I want in a president.

I disagree with his politics--that's obvious. But I disagree with Giuliani's too, and I'd be the first to give him credit for real intelligence. I agree with Kucinich's, and I think he's a bit of a dummy--at least as much as Thompson is.

I wish we could all stop this bullshit about bias. It's plain stupid. You think he's smart, and I don't. Why don't we give each other credit for making real decisions. Haven't we been here long enough for that? I'm not saying that you think he's smart because you agree with his politics. I didn't call you (or Copzilla) any names. You think he's smart because you think he's smart. I don't think he's smart because I don't think he's smart. That's not bias, it's opinion.

Do I come in this forum spouting "oh, you're all a bunch of conservative assholes who can't see the real truth if it bites your blind nose off?" I've grown beyond that, I like to think, to the point of respecting the rest of you even when I disagree, and I damn well have a right to insist on the same level of respect for myself.

Fuck this. Have your own little bashing show. Nobody's patience is infinite.

[tke711]

(EDIT--actually, if the issue is trying to get a win for the Democrats, then Thompson's perfect. He doesn't have a chance in hell. If the issue is having at least an acceptable opinion of the intelligence of the electorate...then, please, don't nominate this guy.)
Actually Joe, I think I may have misinterpreted what you said here. Instead of attacking Thompson's intelligence, I think you were attacking the intelligence of any of the electorate that has any conservative views.

That I expect from a hard core Liberal.

[joseftu]

Yes, you did misinterpret that. And that's not all you misinterpreted, either.

Expect whatever the fuck you want.

[Fiona]

*hands Joe a cup of tea.

Get back here you wuss! ;)

You need to keep posting. I learn from you. So there. End of story. Carry on.

For the record, I don't think it's bias either, (much.) I like some of what Fred Thompson supposedly stands for. But then I look at his voting record in comparison to what he says and I'm umm ... :blank:!

His voting record seems to be TOO conservative for my taste. So far.

[cmhbob]

Before you decide anything based on the bills he voted for or against, you need to look at the bills. Maybe he voted against X, because Y was buried in there, and he was against Y. Or he voted for A, even though B was in the bill, because A was more important.

[tke711]

"Common sense" and "folksy"...that's how even his supporters describe him. That ain't smarts, in fact it's code for the opposite.

When was common sense ruled out as part of being smart? Hell, I wish 99.9% of our elected jokers had a hell of lot more common sense. True intelligence isn't measured simply by IQ scores.

The man also got full scholarships to Tulane and Vanderbilt, which doesn't happen to dummies unless they are legacies, which he wasn't.

I wish we could all stop this bullshit about bias. It's plain stupid.

Do I come in this forum spouting "oh, you're all a bunch of conservative assholes who can't see the real truth if it bites your blind nose off?" I've grown beyond that, I like to think, to the point of respecting the rest of you even when I disagree, and I damn well have a right to insist on the same level of respect for myself.

Fuck this. Have your own little bashing show. Nobody's patience is infinite.

As for the rest of this crap....I don't even know what to say Joe. We all have biases, including you, that influence our opinions and our posts on every topic, not just this one. The only thing disturbing about it is watching you get this hot and bothered over being called on it, right or wrong.

[ethics]

Thompson does take some moderate stances, and is why I labeled him moderate / conservative.

I would have to side with Joe on this. Fred is not a moderate. Rudy-- as Joe said-- is a moderate. Fred is a Conservative through and through. Perhaps not ALL issues but certainly most that would define him as Right Wing Conservative.

We can go major issue one by one I've color coded these issues in red and blue for representing the obvious:

Abortion: He is pro-life (Hillary is not exactly pro - abortion either)

Civil Rights: He is against gay marriage. He is against adding sexual orientation to hate crime. He is against protecting gays against discrimination in the workplace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act). The only blue here is that he is against revising the Constitution to ban gay marriages.

Affirmative Action: He is FOR it.

Global Warming: Doesn't believe humans are the cause, believes it's the entire solar system not just Earth. He is also against funding renewable and solar energy. He is, however, for more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. And also for reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.

Gun Control: Against it.

Immigration: Secure the borders then talk about how to fix the rest.

Separation of Church and State: Is concerned that God is being eliminated and doesn't believe expression is dangerous in public places.

War on Terror: Believes in diplomacy, but only if it's backed by military. Meaning that he would use diplomacy first but wouldn't rule out force. One of the few moderate stances.

Iraq: Believes that the United States was right to invade Iraq but says that mistakes were made. Most Liberals believe that US didn't have the right to invade Iraq. Afghanistan, yes, Iraq no.

Iran: Believes that Iran is willing to stand by its vow of destroying Israel. The only reason he is a moderate is because he is not going the NeoCon ways of trying to use force to change Iran. He believes that the United States may be able to change Iran without using military force

Corporate Economy: He believes in restricting bankruptcy laws. Meaning less rights and less flexibility to the person filing for Bankruptcy. He is also for restricting class-action lawsuits. For ANWR drilling for oil. Against allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.

Crime: He believes in Death Penalty so much he believes it DETERS murder.

Family Oriented: Voted against selling violent games to minors. This can go either way. I think both Liberals and Conservatives are against this.

Healthcare: Against Socialized medical system here in the US.

There's more but I don't have time to go through it. I would say 95% of his stances are Right Wing Conservative, folks. Not sure why you are attacking Joe for calling a spade a spade?

[Copzilla]

I take it as a great sign for Thompson that liberal columnists and op/ed writers have been going after him for months.

Heh, me too.

All I want is a president who isn't pledged to turn my country socialist.

I like his stances on the federal government. Let the states decide, let the people make their individual choices, don't force yourself down their throats. I like the notion of the states competing for business and citizens based on their policies and laws.

[ethics]

=

I like his stances on the federal government. Let the states decide, let the people make their individual choices, don't force yourself down their throats. I like the notion of the states competing for business and citizens based on their policies and laws.


And.... the press MAY opine about him.

Guys, you are all turning rabid over one thing Mikeky stated about SOME ambiguous sources saying this is 'ho-hum'. For any serious journalist, and there's plenty left, this is a great piece of news and a source of MUCH new material.

Hell, if I were a reporter, this just expands my coverage of the 2008 elections and I would be excited.

[Copzilla]

What you've just written does not describe a "hard-core conservative who takes right wing stances on every issue". I was not denying he's a conservative, no more than I would deny Hillary is a liberal. But Hillary is not a "hard-core liberal who takes left wing stances on every issue" either, as she is a moderate/liberal. That would be unfair, and I called Joe on it.

And since this thread has degraded into profanity, I'll add a "fuck" to that as well.

Besides, you simply red-flagged abortion, and Pro-life is not his stance. It's "Individual Choice", and let the states decide.

[ethics]

What you've just written does not describe a "hard-core conservative who takes right wing stances on every issue". I was not denying he's a conservative, no more than I would deny Hillary is a liberal.

Actually, that's not a good comparison. Hillary is MUCH more moderate than Thompson is. I would say Hillary is as Liberal as RUDY is Conservative. Both are politicians, both look for polls, both are very smart in what they do and say. Thomson is more of a Howard Dean in the opposite comparison sense.

And since this thread has degraded into profanity, I'll add a "fuck" to that as well.


I didn't use any.

Besides, you simply red-flagged abortion, and Pro-life is not his stance. It's "Individual Choice".

He is not pro-choice, a liberal stance. He voted for many different things and he is a staunch Conservative. He is also AGAINST the bold parts which really make no sense to me.

Click here for 9 full quotes on Abortion (javascript:pop_wide('../2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm');) OR other candidates on Abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/Abortion.htm#Fred_Thompson) OR background on Abortion (javascript:pop_wide('../Background_Abortion.htm');).
1991: Consulted for pro-abortion group, as part of law firm. (Jul 2007)
Doesn't recall 1994 survey ok'ing abortion; doesn't ok it. (Jun 2007)
Roe usurped 200 years of law; return decision to states. (Jun 2007)
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

[ethics]

I will say this though, Curtis. The site Joe linked would consider your comparison to be true:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Guess I am wrong on that.

But still, Fred is hard-core Conservative. I don't think that should be shameful for those that agree with him though. :)

[Copzilla]

Actually, that's not a good comparison. Hillary is MUCH more moderate than Thompson is. I would say Hillary is as Liberal as RUDY is Conservative.

Universal healthcare slings her pretty hard to the left, bro. Certainly more than states rights on abortion slings Thompson to the right.

But we're arguing semantics and not issues. I *still* favor states rights. We can make Cali as liberal as the utopians want, and Texas as conservative as us knuckledraggers want, and all be happy as hell. I don't need the Feds telling me how to live.

[Arc]

I thought he was waiting till Sept.6?

He announced today the he is going announce his candidacy on September 6th. Boy will we be suprised on the sixth and if you are a supporter of him then you will be really excited to "learn" that he is in!

I wonder what he really wants? I honestly believe without any malice toward him that he really doesn't believe he has any chance at the nomination. So I wonder what his motives are?

[Copzilla]

You know what's really retarded about these kinds of sites, Leon? The weighting system they employ.

For example, a person isn't necessarily "hard-core" liberal or conservative for *generally* believing one direction or another. In other words, I believe in freedom and individual rights, I believe in moral choice of a pregnant lady, but I *personally* hold the notion that abortion isn't a good thing, and the states should make the laws on it. Does this mean I get 5 points against me, like this site does? Wait... didn't I say I believe in the person's individual choice?

Also, the site issues equal weighting on each individual topic, but obviously we all do not have equal weighting on each topic. For example, I consider support of universal healthcare to be the death of a candidate. I'm talking almost insurmountable weight, -100 points. I regard gun control the same way. I don't consider the "No Child Left Behind" initiative to be in the same ballpark, as I believe it to be a political slogan that hasn't trickled to the streets much at all, so I weigh it in at like 2 points max. I'd weigh gay rights in at about 5 points, Iraq war at about 20 points. Each topic obviously means more to each voter, of course, but not on the charts. What may seem moderate to me, or liberal or conservative to me, may actually be moderate or liberal or conservative based on *my most important topics*.

I don't see Hillary as a hard-core leftist either. But what do I know?

[Fiona]

Before you decide anything based on the bills he voted for or against, you need to look at the bills. Maybe he voted against X, because Y was buried in there, and he was against Y. Or he voted for A, even though B was in the bill, because A was more important.
Yep. and I do. :)

I'm the same way. I wouldn't vote for a good measure if it contained one Bad line.

[cdw]

Wow...remember when we took those tests and came up with a graph like that? I was just about at the same spot they've put him, lol. I'm sure the questions were quite different, but, hey..I was just about in the same spot on the graph!

And to Fiona: He was the District Attorney on Law and Order. It's the only way I know him. I know absolutely nothing else about him.

[tke711]

You know, it would be kind of interesting to see Hillary and Fred go head-to-head for the Presidency. That site the Joe linked has Thompson solidly in the conservative side and Hillary solidly on the liberal side. In fact, Hillary is even slightly further to the left then Fred is to the right.

http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s090_020.gif

While most American's are probably somewhere in between the two, it would be interesting to see which one prevails.

[ethics]

You know what's really retarded about these kinds of sites, Leon? The weighting system they employ.



Agreed there. I guess we have our own system and I would trust ours rather than theirs. But as you, what do I know? :)

[ethics]

While most American's are probably somewhere in between the two, it would be interesting to see which one prevails.

Rudy, he is the most moderate of them all!

[tke711]

He definitely is the most moderate, no disagreement from me. However, that won't do him much good in my little fake scenario because he wouldn't have got the nomination. ;)

[Fiona]

And to Fiona: He was the District Attorney on Law and Order. It's the only way I know him. I know absolutely nothing else about him.
Yeah, I know. I've seen everyone at least 3 times. :) and Me too!

[ravital]

Not a fan of Thompson, but anyone trying to learn more about him, should know of this tidbit, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson) which I think speaks very well of him:

In 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977), Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti who was a former Tennessee Parole Board chair. Ragghianti had refused to release felons who had bribed aides to Democratic Governor Ray Blanton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Blanton) in order to obtain clemency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemency).<sup id="_ref-blanton_0" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson#_note-blanton)</sup> With Thompson's assistance, Ragghianti filed a wrongful termination suit against the office of Governor Blanton.
Thompson previously considered legal action on behalf of other state employees who were allegedly dismissed for political reasons. In the Ragghianti case, Thompson helped to expose the cash-for-clemency scheme which eventually led to the removal of Blanton from the Governor's office.<sup id="_ref-MC961201_2" class="reference">[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson#_note-MC961201)</sup> In July 1978, a jury awarded Ragghianti $38,000 in back pay, and ordered her reinstatement.<sup id="_ref-blanton_1" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson#_note-blanton)</sup> Ragghianti's case would garner national attention, leading to the publication of a book titled, Marie, and a film of the same name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_%28film%29)

... in which he plays himself.

[Folks, you do not want to be in that woman's shoes with all the garbage and lies about her that she had to endure.]

[Kangaroo]

Reagan was considered a moron by the psuedo-intelligensia left. He played the Soviets like a fiddle, the Democratically controlled Congress like a violin, and the electorate like a harp. He was unabashedly conservative. He was 'folksy', had 'common sense', the two indicia of stupidity, according to Joe. He won two landslides on being conservative. I see similarities between Reagan and Thompson. Thompson will win.

[tke711]

Fred Thompson is certainly entering the race with a bang. His announcement bounce has put him in the lead among Republican voters.

In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Thompson is on top for the first time since late July. The former Tennessee Senator is currently the top choice for 26% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Rudy Giuliani, who has been the frontrunner for most of the year, is close behind with support from 22%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earns the vote from 13% while 12% prefer Arizona Senator John McCain. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee remains atop the second tier at 6%

Source (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1)

Of course, he'll have to work hard at keeping that bounce, but I think it goes to show just how much the other candidates just weren't doing it for Republicans.

[Domh]

Thomspon FTN (For The Nod) from the GOP. He just has that "presidential" thing that so many of the faithful have been looking for.

[Stiofán]

What, you've given up on Wesly so soon? :lol:

[Domh]

What, you've given up on Wesly so soon? :lol:

Hittin' the bong early today I see.

It's Wesley.

He ain't a Republican.

He probably ain't running.

You know damn well I am voting for... YOU.

:happy:

[Stiofán]

Me lookie job, no can do hit bong.