| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| From the Courthouse to the Whitehouse |
| 2007-04-14 |
| I know I'm banging the drum relentlessly for this guy non-stop, but this Fred Thompson is grilling RedMeat for Rantburgers I was 30 minutes late. Thompson, who was on the phone with Howard Baker, his political mentor, didn't seem to care. He hung up, extended his large hand, offered a friendly greeting, and led me to his office. We were alone. Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana. The presence of the cigars and the absence of a press chaperone were clues that Thompson is taking a different approach to his potential candidacy. A campaign flack would have insisted on hiding the cigars--Senator, how did you get those Cuban cigars? Isn't there a trade embargo?--and might have dampened Thompson's natural candor. On subjects ranging from Social Security to abortion, the CIA and to Iran, there would be lots of candor over the next several hours. .. As we spoke, I was struck by the fact that Thompson didn't seem to be calibrating his answers for a presidential run. On issue after contentious issue, I got the sense from both his manner and the answers he gave me that he was just speaking extemporaneously. Many of his answers would drive a poll-watching political consultant nuts. ...by the end of the conversation, two unexpected realities had emerged. If he joins the race for the Republican nomination, and if he campaigns the same way he spoke to me last week, Fred Thompson, a mild-mannered, slow-talking southern gentleman, will run as the politically aggressive conservative that George W. Bush hasn't been for years. And the actor in the race could well be the most authentic personality in the field. OK here come the Rantburg Hot buttons Is he really conservative? Over the course of his time in Congress he earned a lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union of 86 percent; more conservative than John Warner (82), and John McCain (84). Is he principled enough to take a stand? His voting record suggests a strong belief in federalism. Thompson was frequently a lonely voice opposing the federalization of what in his view were state issues. His unwillingness to compromise on that principle even put him on the losing end of a 99-to-1 vote on the so-called Good Samaritan law. He thought it should have been left to the states. Bush Lied, WMD "Part of it had to do with what has become almost a knee-jerk suspicion on the part of a lot of people with regards to anybody in authority," he says. And then he directly faults the Bush administration. "A part of it has been the administration's inability to sufficiently communicate the reality of the situation. It's not just the president. . . . You have to have an organized, pervasive ability to get your message across and rebut erroneous misstatements of the history. It is amazing to me how something like this could be perceived so erroneously by so many people. Because we all know what the facts are. We've all seen the statements and the comments of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, and the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the list goes on and on and on." Thompson slips into sarcasm. "It is amazing to me how a man that they say is so dumb fooled so many real smart people. But that's what they're saying about Bush. Bush canoodled the entire Democratic establishment. Absurd on its face, and yet some people want to believe that sort of thing." Someone say Iran? He is equally blunt about Iran. Thompson says that the actions of the Iranian regime--harboring senior al Qaeda leaders, funding and training Iraqi insurgents, supplying terrorists in Iraq with devices that are killing American soldiers--are acts of war. He stops short of calling for a military response, but seems to suggest that he would be saying something different if circumstances were different. "Unfortunately, today it can't be considered in isolation, so you have to take into consideration our capabilities and our priorities worldwide right now. And unfortunately we're stretched too thin." Nonetheless, he says, the long-term objective in Iran is the same one that led to the Iraq war. "I think the bottom line with Iran is that nothing is going to change unless there is a regime change." Immigration and Mexico? I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: Hey guys, youÂ’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but itÂ’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies wonÂ’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, itÂ’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving MexicoÂ’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But hereÂ’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that countryÂ’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens? Convinced yet that I have the right guy? This old spook is going all-in. Fred is worth it. |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #14 Thompson would make a great president, but he has no chance in the next election. I hope he can put together the massive political organization needed for a 2012 run, though. Im hope you are wrong and he's the next. That said, why didn't he run in 2000? I expect he feared the C word would run off voters, he was and is correct. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-14 20:49 |
| #13 For anyone who's interested, here's a column by Sen. Thompson on taxes. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-04-14 20:31 |
| #12 As for the "cancer" issue - there isnt one if yo bother to inform yourself. Don't be a democrat and eat the lefty blogs (and Romney's lying people - they seem to hae been the worst on this other than Carvile) and MSM's line - go read Fred and his Doctors over at Redstate. Or better yet at the blog I just took over from a friend who is moving to an official campaign position with an issues based 527, and cannot do the web thing anymore since it endorses a specific candidate. (which is why I am back in Colorado, registered to vote and changing my drivers license, etc) Colorado For Thompson In his own words... I was diagnosed with what the doctors call an indolent lymphoma. Of the 30-plus kinds of lymphoma this is a "good" kind, if there is such a thing. I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future--and with no debilitating side effects. I am one of the lucky ones. Now his doctor: WHAT IS IT? Senator Thompson has an indolent form of lymphoma, one of more than 30 types of lymphoma. Some lymphomas are very aggressive, but people with slow-growing types, like Senator Thompson's, often dying from natural causes associated with old age, rather than from the disease. Using a standard prognostic scoring system Senator Thompson has a favorable prognosis. Senator Thompson has never been physically ill or had any symptoms from his lymphoma or had any side effects from the therapy. TREATMENT One treatment option for this type of lymphoma is simply to watch and wait. There are also new therapies, if and when treatment is indicated, which prolong survival compared to treatments used just 5 years ago. Senator Thompson chose to receive such therapy (Rituxan), but he is no longer in treatment as he is in remission. Bruce D. Cheson, M.D. Professor of Medicine Head of Hematology Division of Hematology/Oncology |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-04-14 18:28 |
| #11 " Thompson would make a great president, but he has no chance in the next election. I hope he can put together the massive political organization needed for a 2012 run, though." Gotta dispute this. Rasmussen head-to-head polls show him beating Hillary nationwide 44-43. Nationally and in some states he has outpolled everyone except Rudy, and he is gaining on Rudy. As for the campaign, fred08.com is the "official" "527" draft site, and there is draftfredthompson.com which has thousands of readers and members an has been running since JANUARY, well before all this started in March. Plus look at grassrootsvoter.com - almost 10K people signed up with their real name, address and phone number to volunteer when the campaign starts. All 50 states are covered, and we are getting volunteer and contribution lists and coordinators for different regions in each state. Add to that - watch the news April 18. There will be an endorsement of Fred Thompson by as many as 60 Republican Congressmen. And with that endorsement comes promise of support and personnel from those congressional campaign offices across the US And look at what else the "non existent campaign" accomplished: Just last week, the Lt Gov, Speaker Pro Tem and over 60% of state legislator Republican in Missouri signed a petition backing Fred Thompson, as well as a pile of private citizens, and many pledged monetary and staff support for him. Now in light of ALL the above... Think on this: he isn't even formally a candidate yet, he has no staff, no campaign, no mangers, no PR people, and hasn't spend a dime. How do you explain all that - all the endoresments, polling well nationally, etc? Where is the support coming from? Grass Roots! Word of mouth. Folks like me an you. This isn't the 90's. We have a campaign organization that is running behind the scenes on its own power, without "direction from on high". Just a bunch of net geeks, conservatives fed up with the current administration and the threat of Hillary, old spooks like me (yes quite a few of us I was amazed to find), political guys, and regular Joes and Josephines that are tired of "the system" and the candidates it produces. We have organized in "cells" like a resistance movement across the nation. We are recruiting recruiters who themselves recruit potential volunteers and donors. Why is this so odd? Well its the first truly national grass roots movement the Republican Party has ever seen - and its all oever the internet, growing quietly stronger. And unlike the Dems and Howard Dean and the nutroots, we have a smart, conservative, personable authentic guy we are backing. So you may want to reconsider the "can't win" and "no organization" stuff. I believe we are proving you naysayers wrong - and the MSM is getting the shock of its life when it realizes that this is someone they cannot buy off, lie about or control. Fred's his own man - beholden to nobody other than us, and his own conscience. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-04-14 18:10 |
| #10 Or as a North Carolinian once said to me, "He can't tell bear $hit from wild honey." |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-14 16:58 |
| #9 The general public DOES NOT have the sense to tell shit from Shinola without help. That's because for decades, the MSM has been feeding the general public shit and telling them it was shinola, while pointing at the shinola and telling them it was shit. Backed up of course, by the shit merchants in the education system. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-04-14 16:09 |
| #8 Thompson would make a great president, but he has no chance in the next election. I hope he can put together the massive political organization needed for a 2012 run, though. The Democrats and their media allies (including the potent left-wing blogosphere) are a formidable communications juggernaut. In the future, America desperately needs a Republican president who is an exceptional communicator to present clear counter-arguments to the American people. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-04-14 16:09 |
| #7 I don't chalk it up to inability so much as lack of effort-- or just plain cluelessness. I give him somewhat of a pass due to the sheer massiveness of that panoply; and I reserve my harshest judgement-- getting shot by a firing squad, if I had my way-- for those on the Left who are doing the lying. But I sure hope the next President learns from Bush's mistakes: you CANNOT just let that stuff float around out there without refuting it day-in and day-out, subjecting it to ridicule and grinding it into the ground. The general public DOES NOT have the sense to tell shit from Shinola without help. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-14 15:16 |
| #6 No question Bush's legacy will be his inability to set the record straight on the panopoly of lies set forth by the left. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-04-14 14:54 |
| #5 Thompson: "You have to have an organized, pervasive ability to get your message across and rebut erroneous misstatements of the history." The near-complete failure of the Bush administration to rebut those misstatements by the Left will remain the biggest head-scratcher about their entire 8 years in office. I hope our next President, whoever he is, learns a lesson from that failure. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-14 14:10 |
| #4 The more I hear from Fred, the more I'm convinced that he's The Guy - I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Even if he doesn't win, though, he'll be good for the race - forcing the candidates to confront issues squarely rather than tap dancing around them. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-04-14 14:01 |
| #3 "DU and Daily Kos and all of them are afraid of this guy." They should be. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-04-14 13:38 |
| #2 Then he goes on to give a better defense of the White House than anything that has come out of the White House communications shop in four years. The irony here is that intelligence services had consistently over the years understated the capabilities of enemies and potential enemies. Now, here there was unanimity among the intelligence services, some of whom are supposed to be better than ours. . . . People don't understand intelligence. They don't understand. It's seldom clear. It's often caveated. It's sometimes flat-out wrong. Different people often have different ideas. That's what a president is faced with. And some today would say that politically a president has got to have unanimity before he can make a choice. And then they say that if he has that unanimity, the president has to make that choice--at the same time talking about how deficient our capabilities are. But if those deficient capabilities produced a recommendation, the president of the United States and leader of the free world has to take that recommendation. That has been so faulty in the past. It's absurd. Presidents in the future, as always, have to make a determination based on a lot of things, and intelligence is one of them. And the president not only has the right to evaluate the intelligence that he's receiving, he has a duty to do that. He listens to the British. I mean, if history was any judge, I don't know about now, but if the Brits tell me that there's an [Iraqi] deal with Niger and our guys don't know whether there was or not, I tend to rely on the Brits. I mean, those are the calls the president's got to make, and the question is really: Which way do you want the president to lean? Caution--that it's probably not so? When bad news is delivered, he gets mixed messages, he gets various intelligence reports of various kinds. Did you want him all balled up in all of that, you know, trying to apply some kind of a scientific equation to it for fear that somebody in an intelligence committee is going to wave it around at a hearing later on or something like that? Is that what it's come to? If so, the world is going to be a lot more dangerous than it otherwise already is. You've got to exercise the authority and the responsibilities that you've been given. I mean, in this debate over intelligence and what it is and what it ought to be and how it's used and all of that, you know, [it] needs to be dealt with and laid out in a way that people can understand it. . . . The next report says somebody's got weapons of mass destruction, you know what're we going to do with that? You know, just because history--a cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, but he won't sit on a cold stove either. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-04-14 13:32 |
| #1 Want to know what really convinced me about Fred, was when I was slumming thru DU and Daily Kos and all of them are afraid of this guy. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-14 13:31 |