Fred Thompson considering a run at the White House (merger) - Page 11 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

CYDdharta · #**151** (**permalink**) 05-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

A Commander in Chief who defers to the judgment of subordinates isn't really a commander is he?

Either he supports the war or he doesn't, he's either for getting out or getting in in a bigger way.

While he's not in office, and not running for office, he can defer and be equivocal, but once he announces, he's got to answer the questions or he looks indecisive, and the reality of the upcoming election is that the position that wins the GOP primary, loses the General election.

I disagree, no surprise there. LBJ took a very active role in managing Vietnam. FDR, on the other hand, gave Ike, in Europe, and McArthur and Nimitz in the Pacific, fairly broad strategy requirements and let them work out the details. I know I don’t consider LBJ more of a Commander-in-Chief than FDR. I’m pretty sure you don’t either. Knowing how to delegate authority, and when, is an important skill for any successful president.

He said he’s been influenced by Gen. Petraeus’ assessment of the situation. Hopefully he intends to devise a workable Iraq strategy being guided by advice from the commanders in the field, holding them accountable for meeting those goals. Having Washington dictate strategy to the men in the field never works well.

goober · #**152** (**permalink**) 05-02-2007

You said he doesn't oppose the war, but he doesn't approve of the way it's being waged.
If he runs, he'll need to be more specific than just saying he'll defer to his subordinates. After all, he'll need to select who he defers to won't he?

My point is that these out of politics type candidates appear from time to time, and generate great interest simply because they are "fill in the blanks" candidates, and lots of people fill in those blanks with what they hope the candidate will say.
But when the candidate starts taking positions, and filling in those blanks, he loses the shine, because he disappoints a lot of people no matter what he says.
I'd say the enthusiasm for Thompson, is directly attributable to the lack of enthusiasm for the declared candidates, who have positions, and who have all alienated large numbers of voters with those positions.

The fact is that a lot of the GOP movers and shakers are already giving up on 2008, and have accepted the high probability that 2012 or 2016 is when the White House will be a horse race they have a chance of winning.

CYDdharta · #**153** (**permalink**) 05-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

You said he doesn't oppose the war, but he doesn't approve of the way it's being waged.
If he runs, he'll need to be more specific than just saying he'll defer to his subordinates. After all, he'll need to select who he defers to won't he?

I never said he would defer the matter to his subordinates. Right now, I’m not sure how he’ll handle it; all he’s said was that he was influenced by Gen. Petraeus’ assessment. I’m hoping he’ll talk to the commanders in the field to determine just what they believe they can accomplish, and then hold them responsible for meeting those goals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

My point is that these out of politics type candidates appear from time to time, and generate great interest simply because they are "fill in the blanks" candidates, and lots of people fill in those blanks with what they hope the candidate will say.
But when the candidate starts taking positions, and filling in those blanks, he loses the shine, because he disappoints a lot of people no matter what he says.
I'd say the enthusiasm for Thompson, is directly attributable to the lack of enthusiasm for the declared candidates, who have positions, and who have all alienated large numbers of voters with those positions.

The fact is that a lot of the GOP movers and shakers are already giving up on 2008, and have accepted the high probability that 2012 or 2016 is when the White House will be a horse race they have a chance of winning.

While it’s true that the GOP front runners are, at best, uninspiring, that isn’t the source of Thompson’s support; after all there are millions of people who are not in politics, very few of them generate any interest. Danny identified the root of FDT’s support eloquently:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

I like Thompson. I respect him despite the fact that he is a conservative because he appears to have moral integrity.

(Thanx Danny, I think that’s the second time I agreed with you. Off hand, I don’t remember when the other time was, but I’m pretty sure there was another time.)

Danny and I have about as much in common politically as you and I. A candidate we can both agree on has a lot more going for him then just dissatisfaction with the GOP frontrunners. He doesn’t dance around things like most politicians; he’s blunt, he cuts right to the bottom line. “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” Don’t you wish there was someone that direct in Washington now? FDT has genuine appeal as someone as fed up with beltway politics as the average man on the street. When he was running for Al Gore’s seat in the senate, he started with the typical campaign. His poll numbers were poor. The numbers didn’t start moving until he ditched the regular campaign and started driving from town to town in a red pickup truck talking to average people. On election day, he won by one of the greatest margins in their history. His victory was no fluke as he won the next election by an even greater margin.

He’s been a fill-in for Paul Harvey. Paul is like an AM Norman Rockwell, he talks about American doing extraordinary things. He can’t afford to sound like a partisan, nor can his guest host.

jviehe · #**154** (**permalink**) 05-04-2007

New article on Fred, going more into his positions:

http://weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?...=13600&r=wwbbi

Quote:

Spending

If restrictive rules of engagement were one of the mistakes of postwar Iraq, refusing to put more troops in Iraq from the beginning of the war is the other. It is one of several sacrifices, he says, that the American people were not asked to make. Talk of "sacrifice" is often political code for taxes, so when Thompson mentioned the lack of sacrifices in "economic policy" I was curious. Thompson has been a supporter of tax cuts over the years, and I doubted that he would call for raising taxes as he contemplated entering the Republican primary.

Are you talking about tax cuts?

"No. I'm talking about the other side of the equation, spending. I think the tax cuts are the things that have put the economy in the position it is today, which is very good. But on the spending side of the equation--and you can't talk about spending without talking about the entitlements. The arguments we are having today over spending and budget deficits and even debt is Mickey Mouse stuff compared [to entitlements]. The numbers are just overwhelming. And so all of that has got to be on the table."

The economics, he says, are directly related to the "global battle" that the United States is fighting. "It's a part of the overall picture. The president's right about that. But it's got to be treated with the seriousness which we say that it deserves. You know, once every two months we make a speech about it, but there's more to it than that. It's got to affect us more seriously than that. You've got to put t he pressure on Congress to be honest with the American people and start addressing all those things which will help not only in Iraq but in our overall interests."

CYDdharta · #**155** (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Well, he didn’t say he was running, but FDT’s latest speech certainly sounded like a campaign speech.

Quote:

Excerpt: Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner
Delivered in Orange County, California, Friday, May 4, 2007

So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.

A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.

Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste, duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it, while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs. The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have enough young working people to finance these programs from their taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt. Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said, "People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come."

It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies; that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for future generations. You always have."

When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you will have your bipartisanship.

ABC Radio Networks

goober · #**156** (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Standard campaign stuff, all platitudes and no policy.
He's telling people what they want to hear, but he's staying away from telling them what they don't want to hear.
He's not for more taxes, he's for a balanced budget, and he'll do it by attacking waste, and "entitlements".
But he doesn't say what he's going to cut, because he doesn't want to piss anyone off. Actually that's what Bush said, back in 2000, and he didn't cut anything .
And he didn't mention Iraq, it must not be an issue.

Personally, I don't think the GOP stands a chance in 2008, no matter who they run, he'll just be a punching bag for people to express their feelings about Bush.

CYDdharta · #**157** (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

He discussed the government management problems in some depth in the report he mentioned he wrote while he was in congress. You can get it here.

BlackAsCoal · #**158** (**permalink**) 05-06-2007

As it was known would happen, at some point Thompson was going to have to step into the light and make his positions known. His support for keeping our troops in Iraq will just about end his chances at becoming POTUS.

Say hello to John McCain.

Fred Thompson calls for continued presence in Iraq
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/m.../latimes19.htm

The possible Republican presidential candidate addresses Orange County faithful.

May 5, 2007

Quote:

Actor and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson — whose potential candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has drawn more attention than some of the declared candidates — Friday urged a continued military presence in Iraq as a barrier to even further destabilization in the Middle East.

"I don't think it's any question that if we leave Iraq before there is some semblance of stability brought about in that nation … that the world is going to be a more dangerous place," Thompson said, adding that "as long as those brave people on the front lines who are making our sacrifices for us … say that they have a chance, we need to give them that opportunity to make that work there."

Thompson, speaking before about 450 people at the annual Lincoln Club of Orange County dinner, warned that failure to stabilize Iraq would lead to more troubles in the future.

"Under the worst set of circumstance there, we're going to leave a new haven for terrorism; we're going to leave an area of the world that becomes more and more nuclear," he said. "Those Sunni nations surrounding Iraq will respond to what Iran is doing … and the whole place will be nuclearized, and that will be bad for us."

Thompson, who spoke for more than 30 minutes, strayed far from prepared remarks he had posted earlier in the day on his blog at ABCRadio.com.

In his speech he mentioned the names of some of the icons of conservative Orange County politics, including John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, whose political career was launched and supported by the influential Lincoln Club.

Thompson's appearance came a day after 10 announced Republican candidates took part in a nationally televised debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library near Simi Valley.

That Thompson and not one of the current candidates was the featured speaker at Friday's dinner at the Balboa Bay Club & Resort had more to do with timing — and money — than anything else, said Lincoln Club President Richard K. Wagner. The dinner, he said, was not a fundraiser.

"A lot of them are going through fundraisers right now, and money is king," Wagner said, adding that he expected the major Republican contenders to eventually speak before the club.

Thompson, best-known for his role as Dist. Atty. Arthur Branch on television's "Law & Order," is being closely watched by the Republican candidates. He has not built a campaign structure, but his high media profile and distinctive Southern drawl would probably catapult him into the top tier.

As it is, several polls show him trailing former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, but slightly ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Thompson won election to Al Gore's unexpired Senate seat from Tennessee in 1994, and was reelected to a full term in 1996. He did not seek reelection in 2002. A lawyer, he also served as minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 and 1974.

Thompson staked out solid conservative ground for himself, saying that "government is too important to leave up to the government," and urged a smaller and more decentralized federal government, lower taxes and secured national borders.

And he said looming financial crises in the Social Security and Medicare programs were key domestic problems that had not been resolved because Congress lacked the will to do so. Thompson suggested that the solution to the forecast shortfall in Social Security and Medicare might rest in cutting benefits.

That would require electing national leaders willing to take such difficult issues directly to voters, he said.

Thompson hinted strongly that he would support reductions in benefits from such programs to help keep them solvent.

"I think if a credible case is made to the American people, that Mom and Dad and Grandmom and Granddad will be more than happy to make the adjustment necessary to protect their kids and their grandkids," Thompson said

Rakkasan · #**159** (**permalink**) 05-06-2007

this is a huge topic here in TN

alot of steam building up for his run- and alot of local media coverage

jviehe · #**160** (**permalink**) 05-07-2007

I still have yet to disagree with anything he has said.

goober · #**161** (**permalink**) 05-07-2007

Apparently the crowd wasn't very impressed by Thompson.
Man who would be Reagan doesn't wow 'em :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Robert Novak

CYDdharta · #**162** (**permalink**) 05-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Apparently the crowd wasn't very impressed by Thompson.
Man who would be Reagan doesn't wow 'em :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Robert Novak

It sounds like the crowd was disappointed because he didn’t use the speech to announce his candidacy as had been hoped. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

CYDdharta · #**163** (**permalink**) 05-22-2007

It seems Fred Thompson was, umm, underwhelmed, with the latest “comprehensive” immigration plan. He does map out a better approach to the problem than anything we’ve seen proposed by the leadership of either party lately.

Fred Thompson on Immigration on National Review Online

Niccolo · #**164** (**permalink**) 05-23-2007

Arguably, Thompson is of the weakest of all the potential Republican nominees. That he looks almost like a viable candidate just shows how bad the Republican field is this time round.

That red pickup truck gimmick might play for a local contest, maybe even a State-wide race, but you can't run a national campaign on fakery.

CYDdharta · #**165** (**permalink**) 05-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niccolo

Arguably, Thompson is of the weakest of all the potential Republican nominees. That he looks almost like a viable candidate just shows how bad the Republican field is this time round.

That red pickup truck gimmick might play for a local contest, maybe even a State-wide race, but you can't run a national campaign on fakery.

The Joe-Average gimmick worked quite well for Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton.