Why I Like Fred!
I must establish up front that it’s not for my dislike of other candidates that I’ve chosen to support Fred, (except Ron Paul…what a Jackass), and it’s not that the other candidates (except for notes Ron Paul exception) aren’t qualified…I just like Fred.
Defiant Infidel has a great run down over at his blog that addresses some of the same concerns that I had. If you’re up and have time I suggest you read it.
My reason for liking Fred?
He’s a straight talker. I agree with what he says, and he doesn’t pussyfoot around it. From the last several months of watching him slowly work his way up the polls without having even announced yet, anyone can identify that he has charisma, but in addition to that, he’s got that “straight talker” tag that is well deserved. He doesn’t dance around issues, he doesn’t give a politicians response. From Hannity and Colmes (H/T/: DI):
HANNITY: …And, you know, I guess it’s the basic question: Why do you, Fred Thompson, want to consider being the next president of the United States?
THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now. We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we’ve never faced before. And I don’t think the American people are being apprised of it; I don’t think they realize that this has been something that’s been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.
And we’ve got a military that’s still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We’re spending much less than we need to, to face that threat. I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that’s hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.
We’re an aging society, a good thing. We’re living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it’s going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We’re going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.
So you can’t sit back, and see people, you know, talking their sound bites and going over their list of things to get applause lines and so forth, and see where your country is headed, and knowing what you’ve got to do for the next generation in order to make it the same way that it was when we inherited from the prior generation, without thinking serious thoughts about what you ought to do about it.
Granted, he’s a fantastic speaker, as is Mitt Romney, who is my close #2…but he has something that Mitt hasn’t been able to convince me of yet. He’s comfortable with who he is, where he is, and the choices he’s made.
Kevin, from Blogiburton asked me:
But. I see your ’support Fred’ donation image in the sidebar. Is it really time to do this? The RNC got nothing from me for the last two years (a trend I planned to continue). I like Duncan Hunter the best, and Fred Thompson second, though it’s pretty obvious only Fred has a chance to win. But if we start giving them money, what will teach them to actually act like a conservative, unlike what they’ve been doing for over a year?
I think absolutely. I actually had pledged money to the RNC, and then when hit hit the fan over the past several weeks, I had to send them an empty envelope. Unless they act like “Republicans” then they don’t get any of my dollars. The reason I’m willing to fund raise for Fred (and I hope I get the chance…) is because it’s a person you’re supporting, not a party machine that takes the money, and routes it to the candidate they feel is acceptable. Pardon my cynicism, but I don’t really trust the RNC’s judgment that much right now. Heck, I even took myself of of McCain’s mailing list (I try to get all of the info from all of the candidates directly, as I said, I know who I like, but that doesn’t mean I won’t support anyone but him) because of his recent ass raping of the base over immigration.
I will donate to Fred, and maybe I’ll donate to another, but thank God for the internet and grassroots efforts like Fred!’s campaign (not a typo), because that means I can chose to support who I want, not who the continually disappointing “let’s congratulate Ted Kennedy” leadership thinks I should support.
Now is the time to make a difference. It’s the primaries. Now is the time to give the money, to make your best judgments, the blog your little heart away, and research the candidates, because as Republicans, now is where we can pick the best of the best.
You ask Fred Thompson what the best country in the world is? He’s going to answer the United States. He won’t qualify it with caveats and exceptions. He’s no Jean le Kerry.
Thoughts? Hug it out on the comments bitches.
FT is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations. That’s not good. He also was a big supporter of McCain/Feingold Finance Reform and that’s a no-no for true conservatives.
You say, “He’s a straight talker. I agree with what he says, and he doesn’t pussyfoot around it.”
That is exactly why I am voting for Ron Paul.
I was initially interested in Fred Thompson, but then I did a little research on him and found he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and also the American Enterprise Institute. That could not possibly be good for any American.
So, I did some research on the other candidates and the only one who is a straight talker who isn’t trying to cover up anything is Ron Paul. For 70-something, the guy has some serious cajones.
I’d like to see Fred grow cajones, buck the establishment, buck his onwers that seem to have a noose around his neck, and tell the people he’s going to get rid of the IRS and bury the North American Union. If he can’t do that, he doesn’t come close to Ron Paul in the cajones department.
I believe Fred has it in him, though. I will be watching him closely to see if he defines himself as a self-made man that is really, truly for the people.
I am also not some young punk, just so you know. I am retired and 55 years old.
Bill, you can click through to DI’s writeup to see the McCain Feingold…but I figured you throw “Ron Paul” out there…you get the herds of Ron Paul sheeple coming out of the woodworks (bracing myself for verbal barbs). I think the guy’s a bit of the “North American Union” conspiracy nut…and while I don’t think government is always the answer, I don’t ever think I could have a president who thinks government (et al) is the problem. His performance in the debates blew any chance he thinks he had…
Let me clarify sheeple a bit…I don’t want to come across as too insulting. People who are for Ron Paul are for Ron Paul…no other candidate has any credientials, morality, backbone, except Ron Paul. My stance with Fred is that I like him…I also think the other candidates have things to offer, even Ron Paul can bring his stance on taxes and the IRS to the floor. Ron Paul candidates are alienating themselves, becuase they trash everyone else…as if Ron is the only rational choice, not one of the many good choices, which i think we have.
Being a member of the CFR isn’t what the tin-foil hat brigade think it is. Its no different then being a menber of the Heiratige Foundation or the Cato Institute.
The McCain Feingold thing isn’t good, but I don’t think any one has a perfect record.
Mitt turns me off. I don’t like the flipflops on multiple issues in just the last few months. So, even though I’m a Mormon, I will not be supporting Romney on principle. (In that I don’t think he has any.)
Sign me up for Fred! !
Right now Fred is the republicans pocket aces. I’m all in.
I suppose we could have the ultimate Hollywood debate if we’d get Martin Sheen to run for the democrats.
Ah, but that’s just silly talk…
Stop reliving your West Wing days…it over…over I say!
WillyPete as in MSC’s WillyPete?
Sign me up for Fred!
GoingThere
Can someone fill me in on the American Enterprise Institute? Not fimiliar???
the reason Ron Pauls supporters are so vehemently outspoken is that they actually realize that traditional republicans have become shallow on principle, and liberal policy apologists. we’re spending 2-3 billion a day on this mess in Iraq, and you warhawk pseudo christrians want to go start another war in Iran; how will we pay for this?? a hear a lot of talk about cutting ‘pork’, but nothing will ever equal our foreign military spending. Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson are still entitlement republicans.. and aside from being pro war, none of them will address the inflation tax, the IRS and and Federal Reserve fraud, as Paul will, which is AT THE HEART OF THE ALL ISSUES! what i see is that you are on the defensive, since your unconstitutional actions and aggressive neocon behavior is being exposed by Pauls movement, and the country is demanding a return to constitutional oversight.
most republicans wont even be honost with themselves about whats happening. Bush does not care about security, or he would have listened to the conservatives around the country who are opposed to this amnesty bill they want to force on us. and, the North American Union is not a conspiracy thoery, its already began construction in texas, with a proposed unified currency called the ‘amero’; its been covered on Lou Dobbs and MSNBC already. this act alone completely undermines his credibility on the ‘war on terror’, and proves that legislation like the Patriot act and Homeland security were intended to invade OUR privacy, not secure our liberties
i fear for our future if anyone other than a strict constitutionalist is elected, because political expediency and ill founded secular ‘rationalism’ are going to destroy this country and the beliefs it was so successfully founded on
Ha…that’s cute. He said we’re on the defensive…maybe that could be because Ron Paul supporters are driven by the attack. Allow me to demonstrate.
“you warhawk pseudo Christian’s”
“your unconstitutional actions and aggressive neocon behavior” (notice the buzz word
“most republicans won’t even be honest with themselves”
“conservatives around the country…want to force on us”
I love it when people are aggressive, and then jump on people who are “defensive” by responding. Way to Google “Ron Paul”, find an article about Fred Thompson, visit a site you’ve never visited before, pass blanket judgments about a group based on one article (I followed the clicks, you didn’t read anything else and probably won’t ever come back to even read this after your drive by comment) and work yourself into a frenzy.
P.S. Ron Paul was one of two people who voted against urging the UN to condemn a man who wants to destroy an entire nation. Be against war…but don’t be so scared of doing the right thing that it drives you to support a man who condones genocide.
Viva la aislacionismo!!
“When Sheeple Attack” new on must see TV…is it really new or secretly in syndication?
On the politician’s only channel aka the distraction channel this is old news. How old you ask? Since Moses was a buck private…”OH MOSES, MOSES MOSES…” “BEHOLD!” Yeah that Moses, Chuck Heston ya know…
Stir up the sheeple get them off topic on some notional legislation or tangential kum-by-wa moment of “IMPORTANCE” and we can do almost anything we want. And if the bleeting is loud enough on the “correct” topic we can make/pass BS policy and legislation that enrichens ourselves, gathers power and cater to them at the same time. BONUS!!!
GoingThere
in response to the Stout Republican:
“P.S. Ron Paul was one of two people who voted against urging the UN to condemn a man who wants to destroy an entire nation. Be against war…but don’t be so scared of doing the right thing that it drives you to support a man who condones genocide.”
mind being more specific? are you speaking of IRaq, IRan… which country are you advocating is our responsibility to police on behalf of the UN? and do they intend to split the bill? our argument is that our meddling in the region is just creating the anti-american sentiment, that eventually leads to criminal ‘terrorist’ activity. but lets be honost, you dont really want to pre-empt ‘terrorism’ do you? your approach has always been AMerica is justified and faultless, we hold the global moral high ground, and its as easy as ’shoot to kill’. since terrorism is a tactic, a war on ‘terror’ is futile, since we need to be changing the mindsets of people in the region, to “set good standards, and protect civil liberties here”(to quote Ron Paul), and only then they will want to emulate us. right now its current policies that are giving fueling their hatred towards us.
and now you want to go to preemptively attack IRan? why.. cause they have a nuke program 10 years away? because Iranian citizens are joining insurgents against us? their NATION is no more a threat to us then it ever was… they definately wont openly declare war. regarding Iran, maybe you can quote me specifically where Ahmadinijad said he would ‘wipe Israel off the map’, since i read the quote and it was phrased nothing like that(but was refferring to empirical zionism). why thats our problem is anyones guess. again, you probably call yourself a conservative, despite clearly advocating global intervention on behalf of our allegience to the supreme UN authority. if you care about our sovereignty from Mexico, grow some balls and oppose the UN. maybe someday the UN will declare Americans in violation of something… will you then support their efforts?
“Ha…that’s cute. He said we’re on the defensive…maybe that could be because Ron Paul supporters are driven by the attack. Allow me to demonstrate.”
maybe we actually enjoy legitimate political debate, rather then the doublespeak and propaganda that so many neocons and neoliberals blindly buy into. if you disagree, then rebutt me.. justify spending 2 billion a day overseas? justify the SPP agreement Link justify the amnesty bill, or this administration(and R. congress’)contempt for the bill of rights and our constitution(patriot act, military commissions act et all)?
as for the ‘pseudo christians’ comment(to quote myself), Jesus established a new covenant, which once and for all brought gentiles into the biblical family of Israel; this was a fundemental point of scripture. the NT makes it clear that a ‘Jew’ is someone who does the will/and pleases God; that circumcision was of the ‘heart’, no longer physical. so this notion that we need to defend the physical, artificial state of Israel, with complete indifference to the point of hypocracy towards other ME nations is absurd. the nuclear weapon issue is a perfect example of how the US is shady as hell in regards to anti-proliferation treatise and who become targets of UN sanction. why do Israel or Pakistan allowed to weaponize, but not IRan? it seems to me that is overstepping our authority, and imposing on anothers sovereignty. but since its happening to us with the UN, maybe its less noticeable to you now
our Creator entitles us to the right of protection, thats why WE have a 2nd amendment.. but i guess Iranians arent actually creations of the Lord. im suprised the hate has been masked so well from your message, especially around other christians.. because neocons dont really care about liberties and rights, theyve just become sales tactics. obviously they possess nefarious ulterior motives, which is why Romneys ‘double gitmo’ and Rudys ‘national ID card’ comments get so much support among pro-war advocates
Note: For disclosure I edited Cody’s above comment so that a link which threw off the formatting of the page now reads “link”, no content has been changed.
You mean, you don’t dispute his latest comment??? ;)