A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

April 10, 2007

Fred Thompson Campaign Starting in Earnest?

From News Max.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson has begun assembling the core of a campaign team in preparation for a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

The only problem for Thompson is that even though the primaries are close to ten months away, he is very late to get in. He has no money, and would be assembling a staff on the fly.

While the “Law & Order” actor has not decided whether he will run or not, “he is getting more serious every day,” an adviser told The Politico.

At some point he’s going to have to get in or get off the sidelines.

Thompson placed third among Republicans in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, garnering 12 percent of the vote behind former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. John McCain from Arizona. It was the first Gallup poll taken after Thompson announced on March 11 that he may run for the White House.

This is impressive, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement. Those members of the GOP who vote in primaries know about this development, and while 12% is not bad, it is hardly the stuff a mandate is made from.

Advisers say Thompson has been encouraged by the response at a time when many conservative Republicans are unhappy with the GOP front-runners for 2008.

A telling statement at a family gathering. My family is very Republican and are rather Conservative. They are culturally more Conservative than myself, as they are active Evangelicals, while I have some of the ideas in my mind, but am not actively involved in any church. When I spoke about Thompson’s run, I was greeted with this question, “Why”, aren’t there enough in the field already. I replied that some of the base was not happy with the lack of a true Conservative. The reply was telling how many may feel: “Conservative?” If Rudy Giuliani isn’t Conservative in that he is pro-defense and for smaller government, than people don’t know what a Conservative is anymore.

I have to state that I agree. The term Conservative has been hijacked by the more socially zealous base of the GOP. Anyone who saw how Giuliani ran NYC, how he cleaned the streets from crime, how he stood up to Arafat when he was at a public event, and how he made NYC streets from a warzone, filled with drug peddlers, smut shops, prostitutes, and nuisance crimes, and what the city was like while he was mayor, and remains to this day, understands that having room for discussion on gun control – like a big city mayor would not want the number of guns to be limited, abortion – I thought the GOP complained when the Dems used the reciprocal litmus test for a candidate, and gay rights; don’t think that homosexuals will be lining up on the streets to get married if Rudy wins the election.

Right now the GOP is in BIG trouble, and that word is capitalized for a reason. While the extreme wing throws up names like Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, and some of the base would love a Thompson or a Brownbackcandidacy, it doesn’t seem like anyone is very excited by Mit Romney. The only way the GOP retains control of the Executive Branch is if there is serious drift from women, Independents and socially moderate/conservative Democrats, because right now people are lining up to register for the Dems. The GOP needs to wake up and throw out a consensus candidate. Right now that is Rudy or McCain, and Rudy has more traction than the Arizona Senator.

17 Comments »

  1. Well said. I agree that the GOP is in trouble, and they need to shed some of their evangelical “weight” if they hope to win in 08.

    I am currently registered Republican, and I feel the party is more likely to defend my individual liberties. But if GOP voters decide to nominate someone to the right of Giuliani and McCain, I will likely have to jump ship and see what else is available. Hopefully they don’t make that mistake.

    Comment by Roland Dodds — April 10, 2007 @ 4:09 am | Reply

  2. While I like Thompson a great deal, I don’t think he is the answer. Rudy and McCain are Conservative enough to know that Crime and Terrorism are dangerous, and smart enough to know that abortion and gay marriage are not major policy issues. They don’t threaten the security of the United States.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 4:13 am | Reply

  3. I think that Thompson won’t have to worry about money or name recognition like some of the other candidates. As soon as people see him they will either recognize hime from his movie roles and Law & Order or they will be racking their brains trying to figure out where they have seen him before.

    Right now I think that Thompson is the hope for the GOP so many conservatives won’t stay home during the 2008 election.

    Romney is doing the John Kerry Mass. Shuffle. I was for abortion before I was against it. I was pro gay rights before I was against them. I was against guns before I was for them and hunted once in my back yard.

    I just don’t know where McCain stands on so many issues. I guess that I’ll have to wait for him to talk a little more.

    I like that Rudy is sticking to his guns. He’s pro-choice and he’s not trying to change his stance on it. Now saying that tax dollars should fund it is really going to hurt a little. If there’s one thing that pisses off more conservatives than abortions is the fact that they will be paying for other people’s abortions.

    Now I like that Ron Paul is in the race. Sure he has very little chance to win but he will make the other candidates speak up about fiscal responsibility. He’ll ask those “compassionate conservatives” if they are “compassionate” enough to let cancer patients in pain have medical marijuana.

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Reply

  4. Ron Paul should become that consensus candidate. He stands for smaller government, secure borders, respect for the Constitution, and an end to the disastrous war in Iraq — hardly “extreme” positions, unless you consider the majority of American citizens “extreme”.

    Comment by Doug D — April 10, 2007 @ 4:37 am | Reply

  5. LLR –
    Rudy supports the Hyde Amendment, which is the law. This allows for Federal funds to be used if, the woman was raped, was a victim of incest, or her life is endangered by the pregnancy.

    The Hyde Amendment is Conservative legislation, and allows for funds to be used in these exigent circumstances. That is not Conservative or Liberal, it is sanity.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  6. I don’t dislike Ron Paul, but history is against him Tancredo and Hunter doing well. It’s been a LONG time since a REP became a Chief Executive, and there is a reason why. Typically they don’t have the pop to even win state-wide office, and rely on parochial issues to win their elections, which is why so many incumbents do well, and why they traditionally fare so poorly at larger offices.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 4:54 am | Reply

  7. Rudy also said that it’s a constitutional right and that the gov’t should be paying for constitutional rights. Well according to that logic, I need a new gun. I am looking at a Glock 19 with the high-cap mags. We have a “real right” to bear arms and I need the gov’t to get me my new gun!

    In my opinion you better be a real good candidate if you aren’t very 2nd amendment friendly. I mean you better be good on everything else. GWB isn’t exactly the most gun friendly president but thank God that he had GOP controlled house and Senate when the Assault Weapons Bill died in 2004! Bush would have reauthorized the ban if Congress passed it.

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 5:24 am | Reply

  8. I love Rudy for his toughness on the war on terror and his vow to appoint strict constructionists. For awhile he was my top pick by a long shot. But his reaffirmation that he would support our hard earned tax dollars paying for abortion just makes it difficult for me to completely be his cheerleader.

    That said because the field sucks he may be my choice by default. If the field truly does narrow down to Rudy, McCain and Romney I would probably even pick him over Romney. I refuse to ever vote for McCain in the primaries and if by some awful turn of events he becomes our nominee I will vote for him against the Democrat in the general election. But he is the only Republican that I will not lift a finger for to get elected. I worked my butt off volunteering for W in 2004 and Talent in 06 but I will not lift a finger for McCain. Anyone else, yes!!

    Comment by Little Miss Chatterbox — April 10, 2007 @ 5:33 am | Reply

  9. I own a rifle and have owned a handgun, but I have little problem with regulations concerning semi-automatic rifles and certainly automatic weapons. I have little worry that a President Giulliani would take these away from me. Heck, I don’t even care if I have to register them or wait for them for a little while.

    Where does sanity end and insanity begin. I think a rate of fire 300 rds per minute is…well insane. I mean should I be able to legally mount rocket launchers on my little Hyundai? I have little problem of a mayor of a very large city being a bit careful about how many guns are out there.

    Of course the 2nd Amendment is important, but let’s consider the framer’s intent and the needs that were upon the Republic compared to the needs of today.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  10. AVOR,
    I can understand where you are coming from but Katrina is the prime example of why we need the 2nd amendment. When the cops are gone, who’s going to protect you?

    I own a rifle and have owned a handgun, but I have little problem with regulations concerning semi-automatic rifles and certainly automatic weapons.

    It’s hard as hell to get your hands on a fully automatic weapon an even the police officials in LA have said that out of the thousands of weapons that hey can “taken off the streets” not a single one was converted to a fully auto weapon. A lot of people get semi and fully auto weapons confused and a lot of dumb reports just don’t know any better.

    Heck, I don’t even care if I have to register them or wait for them for a little while.
    Gun registration is a very bad idea. I would probably never vote for a candidate that supported any kind of registration. What about the “right to privacy.”

    Condi said this on gun registration:
    Had those guns been registered, she argues, Bull Connor would have had a legal right to take them away, thereby removing one of the black community’s only means of defence. “I have a sort of pure second amendment view of the right to bear arms,” she said in 2001.

    Of course the 2nd Amendment is important, but let’s consider the framer’s intent and the needs that were upon the Republic compared to the needs of today.

    With all due respect the needs are still the same. Self defense is just as much needed then as now. I wish a MF would…LOL

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 5:47 am | Reply

  11. The 2nd Amendment speaks of a militia. This was needed because of the times we lived in.

    I own a rifle and as I have said I have no problem with owning of rifles, shotguns and handguns. I draw the line at military type weapons. A line has to be drawn somewhere, I would think. Is having a LAW really needed or an M60? Of course not.

    In NYC nobody who owned a legal handgun had it taken from them, and while the laws were tough, and there was a wait period and they had to be registered as by state statute, there wasn’t a problem getting one if you needed one.

    Nobody will confuse Rudy with a good ole’ boy who wants to go hunting, but he’s not going to take your guns away. Again, if the GOP is smart they’ll nominate a candidate that has broad based appeal, and other than Rudy and McCain there just isn’t one out there, and Fred Thompson isn’t going to appeal to moderates, Independents and women voters, which the GOP must do well with to have a fighting chance in 08. Right now things are NOT looking good for the GOP.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 5:57 am | Reply

  12. As much as I would like to see the GOP (really Thompson) win in 08, I really don’t want them to compromise on the 2nd amendment. It’s too sacred to me. If Rudy will promise not to sign any new gun legislation that takes away rights, then I think he can win over a ton of gun supporters. For the most part a lot of gunnies like me are semi OK with our current laws. With the assault weapons bill gone we are pretty happy.

    I draw the line at military type weapons. Which ones? I own some older rifles like an Enfield, a Mosin Nagant, and 2 SKSes. Plus I got a couple of shotguns on the way. Are you referring to the AR-15 type “black rifles” that are less deadly than most hunting rifles?

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 6:06 am | Reply

  13. What a choice we might have. Think of it Fred Thompson v Hillary Clinton. The actor against the ex first lady, both of whom suffer from an excess of ambition. I’m not a prosecutor but I play one on TV kind of stuff. My god(s) whatever happened to the political process where people earned their place by the work they did for their party–the smoke filled room? “Vox Populi” often leaves us with bad choices, extreme candidates, and, in the end, a weakened nation.

    By the way, have any of you gun nuts thought about how much the rest of the world laughs at the United States about our gun policy? The 2nd amendment does not say that the right to bear arms is unlimited, rather it specifically allows for ownership in order to keep and maintain a militia. How many of you gun nuts have joined the authorized militia state militia? By the way, if you do they will supply you with a gun and you can go shoot to your hearts content.

    Comment by Roger — April 10, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  14. By the way, have any of you gun nuts thought about how much the rest of the world laughs at the United States about our gun policy?
    Come on how do you think that we (“gun nuts”) care what some other country thinks about the US. I laugh at other countries because they are socialists nations. I laugh at other countries because they don’t have freedom of speech. I laugh at other nations because they don’t have a RIGHT to bear arms. Also please let me know some of these countries so I can name specific things and laugh at them for not having them.

    The 2nd amendment does not say that the right to bear arms is unlimited, rather it specifically allows for ownership in order to keep and maintain a militia.
    Yeah right. If that was so then after the constitution was adopted all guns would have been taken away from the people. Just the very fact that PEOPLE (not militias) owned guns after the constitution was adopted is proof that the 2nd amendment applies to people.

    How many of you gun nuts have joined the authorized militia state militia? By the way, if you do they will supply you with a gun and you can go shoot to your hearts content.
    I am not a member of any militia, but I do believe that everyone should have the right to bear arms. I also made that comment to show that just because it’s a right doesn’t mean that the gov’t has to fund it. We have a right to freedom of the press, but that doesn’t mean that the gov’t should pay for anyone to start up a newspaper.

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  15. As far as gun laws go, I’m partially with the voice here. I don’t have a problem with having guns, but I’m not sure a person necessarily needs an M4 or a Glock automatic for protection. However, the second amendment should not be limited to “militia.”

    To the presidential candidates, I am saddened by what I see from the conservatives who think we have to settle for “moderates.” Yes, I apply a litmus test to all candidates, and that is where they stand on abortion. I simply cannot bring myself to support a candidate who says that abortion is okay, or a personal decision, or anything like that. It is murder. Plain and simple. There is no logical reason for it, other than that it is the relatively easy way out of being responsible. It may seem like a vote for the other party, but I will not answer to God someday for supporting someone who supports murder. Unless Guliani demonstrates clearly in the next year or so that he is against abortion and he does not feel that it is a personal decision, I will not vote for him. I’m sure I am not the only one who thinks that way, and if Guliani, McCain, or Romney win the nomination, the third party vote will be the largest this nation has seen in a long time.

    Comment by thelonedrifter — April 10, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  16. s far as gun laws go, I’m partially with the voice here. I don’t have a problem with having guns, but I’m not sure a person necessarily needs an M4 or a Glock automatic for protection.

    What’s the difference between a Glock and a 1911 style pistol. Pull the trigger once and 1 bullet comes out. Fully auto weapons have been banned for decades.

    I too apply a Litmus test to candidates. Abortion is one issue and the 2nd amendment is another issue. The thing that I find so funny is that dems find a “right” to an abortion in the constitution, but the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean that I can own a gun.

    Fred says that he’s pro-life and he has a good 2nd amendment record so he looks pretty good in my book.

    Comment by LLR — April 10, 2007 @ 7:05 pm | Reply

  17. I am not pro-choice per se, but I am also not hard RTL.
    I support the Hyde Amendment fully. With regard to the rest, I figure it never should have gotten out of the states, as the 14th and 9th Amendment arguement to me, and I’m not an expert is a bit faulty.

    With regard to the smoke filled room that is mentioned that is where so much “good” policy and legislation came from. One of the best anecdotes is the relationship between Reagan and O’Neill, who were very opposite, but had enough common sense to cobble out common ground in the middle. O’Neill would come with a bill he knew Reagan wouldn’t like, but the would hammer the bill over a few tall glasses of beer, and before you knew it, you had legislation that typically passed, pushed by an old school liberal and a reasonable Conservative who was interested more in governance than in ideology.

    We need more of that, but the partisanship is too deep at the present time.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 10, 2007 @ 8:10 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: