(Politics) Should Fred Thompson get into the Presidential race?

It seems like the Republican powers aren't too satisfied with them candidates who have stepped forward and they're not big into backing Cheney, either. The rumblings seem to be growing to draft Thompson as the one who would draw the most overall support. He's being seen as a "modern" Reagan.

It would sure make things interesting.

Reagan wasnt modern when he was alive lol. but Fred Thompson is qualified as a candidate I am much more liberal in thinking but he would not be a bad choice and coming from someone with my political leanings that is saying a lot

Greg, you raise a lot of good issues, and make valid observations about the concerns of the Republican parting regarding the "fighting power" of their candidates. I would have to disagree with you and say that Thompson should enter the race. Saying that you're concerned he can't handle the national spotlight is not a valid reason, since few of the candidates running now have really handled the national spotlight - as they are doing now, having declared their candidacy.

I would also say that there is plenty of "oxygen" left in the room with regards to campaign contributions. The numbers you're looking at are in the millions. The American people, when motivated, can donate in the billions. So money is no object!

You also have to consider that there's still plenty of time before the "real race" begins next year – plenty of time for people to shoot themselves in the foot by saying the wrong things in the media. The more candidates you've got, the better your chances of getting the best one out there.

Personally, I'd prefer Thompson to anyone else in the GOP group; Romney has money but his credibility is at issue given the number of issues he seems to feel compelled to change his position on in order to get support from the holier-than-thou crowd. Thompson was an effective governor; he can handle the media just fine. We'll see how he does on the campaign trail.

Actually, Lynn, you've just illustrated another problem with Fred Thompson that I could have mentioned -- voter confusion. Fred Thompson was a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, whereas Tommy Thompson (who is also running) was the governor of Wisconsin.

LOL! You're right of course... and he was a federal prosecutor if my memory is now correct, no? Still a Senator also has dealt with the media so he'll be fine in that regard. Besides, the man has been an actor.. just as Reagan was .. cameras and "spin" won't be a problem :) We'll have to see how he does on the issues.

Kathleen, do you think voters are shallow enough to vote for Thompson (Fred) only because he is a good actor on "Law and Order"? Remember, Reagan wasn't even a particularly well-known or popular actor -- he brought a number of political strengths to the table.

Actually, Kathleen, that's why everyone listens and adheres to my opinions so reverently -- because I'm just so doggoned good looking!

Greg, I think voters are shallow enough to vote for most anyone -- they voted for Bush didn't they? Romney would make a fine Republican candidate, unfortunately for him, the Christian right does not believe Mormons are Christians and he has with his pandering to the Christian right alienated the few moderate Republicans still in existence and the independents and borderline Democrats that might have otherwise supported him. Had he not started the pandering, he would have quickly surpassed Rudy. If any Republican gets elected in 2008, it will be because the Democrat lost the election, not because the Republican won it. So I am not sure it makes a whole lot of difference who the Republicans nominate so long as he smiles and postures a lot.

What is a "family values conservative"? I imagine you would call me "a family values liberal"...but really what do those terms mean...I'm a little bit confused. I'm looking for a candidate that has a road map that could lead us out of this quagmire of "red states" vs. "blue states". I'm looking for a candidate that has a real agenda for solving some of our most pressing problems. I'm looking for a candidate that will "listen" to the hearts and minds of the American people and propose policy changes that could actually command bipartisan support. That's what I am looking for.

I don't care about a person's war chest...I want to vote for a person of integrity...a person who takes responsibility, and has compassion for his fellow man.

As for your question, I really don't know that much about Fred Thompson...but the election is over a year away...if some American citizens think he would make a fine president, let him make the run. Just because Mitt has a big war chest...does that mean he's the only guy that the Republicans are going to present? (No common people, you really don't have a say...let's all get behind ___________, I tell you, he's our man.)
Just some things I've been thinking about over the last few days and when I read your article, I thought, "This is great. He's opening it up for a discussion...he cares what opinions others have". Good post.

greg, excellent post. you know where I stand, my friend...it certainly is a small world today elizabeth e. and I were feature for our Political piece this morning on Senator Bill Bradley. I would love for you to stop by tomorrow for Part II of our piece. I very much would enjoy hearing your opinion on this great American vision for our country. As I have stated before
we may not always agree -- I certainly respect your choice & using your voice!!
Have a very Happy Holiday. ~mo-zy

okay, as a habitual Democrat my comment is probably not desired, but here goes:
Whoever the Republicans nominate, he had better talk a moderate line. I understand that the hard edged conservative core wants more of the same, but I believe that the other 2 thirds of the electorate are going to see that in a candidate and think "uh oh, that reminds me of GWB". That may partly explain the fact the Huckabee and Brownback are not exciting most people.
I am not saying that the next president will not be a Republican, I am just saying that "if you liked George W you are going to love me" will not cut it as a message.

A Fred Thompson candidacy is something to dread. We need someone to clean up the destruction done to the Bill of Rights, among other damage from the current administration. An extreme right-winger like Fred Thompson is bad medicine.

I will agree with one suggestion of your article, Greg--this is a frightfully weak group of Republican candidates.

Add to that the fact that the Romney, Giuliani and McCain campaigns are all self-destructing (due to quixotic and strange utterances from the mouths of the candidates themselves), and you have to think that just about anybody with a big enough ego could decide it's time to jump in.

At this point my question is "Who's Fred Thompson?" Does that answer your question? But then there is lots of time I guess.

I also wondered who Fred Thompson was, i did not want to say anything and look dumb. If he is a right winger, like i say, waste of time.

Greg,

If the republicans are to have a good, viable candidate for the 2008 election, Thompson might well be the one who can get it together. It is certainly not too late and Romney is definitely appearing to falter. Of course, if the party could hold their nose and nominate McCain . . . .

Yes, because Romney won't win in the General

McCain and Guiliani are too liberal. Romney has no real name recognition. He is also too soft on Immigration and Taxes and social issues. Thompson and Huckabee are the two best candidates and I must say, Thompson is tops on my list. If he does run, he needs to clear his stance on Immigration. Unless he gets in the race, the Republicans are not fielding a true conservative nominee. The Republicans need to get with it. The last true Republican won by a landslide and won a second term by even better numbers. There were no SCOTUS hearings to determine the outcome. We had national strength and pride. The American nation was responsible and strong. We took care of business. Unless and until we get back to that point again, the Republican Party will never have the glory it once had.

I say the more the merrier.
It is so early in the race that we will see front runners come and go. If Fred Thompson wants to run I say he should get in the race so we can see who he really is.
Then the people can make the choice.
At lest we would be getting a great speaker. Not like the bumbling boy from Crawford Tx.

believe it or not..its too late for Thompson...he has to catch up in fund raising and also making himself visible..and i don't think he has much to offer...

//Fred Thompson is a gentleman who is proficient in his ability to strike back at his detractors in a civilized, educated, and balanced way.// Is he REALLY a Republican?

Why not? Everyone else is in the race. Romney lost my vote forever when he chose to lie in an attempt to pander to the pro gun proponents. You can support something without making a lame attempt to persuade people you are one of them when you're not. If he will lie about something that trivial, what else will he lie about?

I hope he does run. I mean, after Reagan it's hilarious to hear the right complain about "Hollywood Liberals" as if where you're from or the fact that entertainment may have been your means of making a living devalued your thoughts and ideas. If they put Thompson up for their candidate it will be just another of the many cases of Republicans doing exactly what they are complaining about.

Greg., Good points to ponder. Yes, Fred the man can deliver a political line. Like Romney, Fred is on message of selling the Republican Corporation product brand. Both will be steam rolled by the Hillary/Obama ticket or the Obama/Hillary ticket. Ha-Ha!

l would respectfully disagree with you, Christopher, although I can be swayed. Why do you believe that?

You're right about that, Doug, but the speculation and thus the excitement based on the speculation vanishes. He then becomes like every other candidate, under the microscope.

Elizabeth, "What is a "family values conservative"?" A family values conservative is a conservative who believes that the government can cure our ills by censoring our entertainment industry, outlawing homosexuality, breaking down the barriers between religion and government, and promoting stereotypes as to gender. Most liberals are family values liberals, the differrence is that one groups believes in the stick and the other the carrot. One believes you promote values by adopting legal mandates, the other believes you promote values through education and economic justice. Meanwhile, neo-conservatives are playing both groups off against each other in order to worship military power and Mammon.

Well-written response, George, if not a little harsh and/or over the top. As always, however, you demonstrate your obvious intelligence. (Now, if I can just get you to be a conservative! :) :) :) )

The phrase "family values" needs to just go away. It sickens me. It is banal. it either means nothing, or it is an implicit rant agains gays, or an assertion that Democrats are sluts and rapists.
Are we aware that Dems and Reps divorce at roughly the same rate? I notice that several of the Republican candidates are on their second wife. How can that be, if they are believers in family values and the sanctity of marriage that they trumpet?

You cannot show your devotion to your family by touting it to perfect strangers. I have been happily married and have practiced fidelity in our marriage for 25 years, and I am a Democrat. Whoops, guess I am in the wrong party. Guess i should be telling our daughters to wear more hip huggers, get pregnant, and build a meth lab in the basement.
Yes i am well aware that this rant goes well over the top. But consider the golden rule. Would you, my conservative counterparts, enjoy listening to the term "family values liberal"? Would your blood boil due to your feelings of being disrespected with a backhanded slap? I would assume so.

Absolutely Fred should run. I'm amazed at how many liberals who prefess to KNOW so much about politics don't know that he was a senator LOOOONNNGGGG before he was an actor. They also don't mention his role in the Watergate hearings. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was the Senate Watergate Committee's chief minority counsel in 1973 and 1974. In 1975 he wrote a Watergate memoir entitled "At That Point in Time." Thompson chaired the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which held hearings in 1997 on the 1996 campaign finance controversies, from 1997 to 2001.

Chris, the phrase family values "sickens you"? How do you interpret that phrase to be hateful? I think you are WAY too sensitive. Relax, take a deep breath now let it out....relax. You don't want to pop an artery.

Cindy,

Can't speak for Chris but the term "family values" clearly implies that those who have no family have different values and I've heard it ad nauseam! So if it sickens Chris I can certainly understand. I've raised a family so I should have lost my values and maybe I have because I look at things a lot like George McNaughton. When I see someone wearing their "family values" or their religion on their sleeve I get a firm grip on my wallet because it's likely to suffer in their presence!

Guess we both like a little more honesty than that. Most of the people I know have excellent values. My children have raised and are raising their kids with very strong sense of ethics. The "family" part shouldn't be tied to it because either you have values and ethics or you don't. I've seen family persons I couldn't trust with anything and having a family was irrelevant!

Thanks!

Fred Thompson is so far to the right his is off the road. If he gets the nomination, it will be a cakewalk for whoever the Dem is.

James - there are differing kinds of families in this country. There are senior families, for example. There are people who rely on their extended families. There are single people who rely on their single friends for family. All families matter in this country. Usually, "family values" is code for a Mom, Dad, and the children as if they are the only people who matter. I would suggest that single mothers and single fathers are contributing to society as well as other types of families.

About the article: Should Fred Thompson run. Of course he should. I don't see him winning anything but you never know. The GOP isn't drawing people with leadership skills anymore. John McCain is a joke. Mitt Romney doesn't present character. Guliani has too much baggage. I just don't see the GOP coming out too strong at this point. Of course in a year and a half the picture may look very different.

Chris W. says "I also wondered who Fred Thompson was, i did not want to say anything and look dumb. If he is a right winger, like i say, waste of time. "

How intelligent! Don't learn about someone just because of what side of the fence they are on. Why not Chris, why don't you want to know about Fred Thompson? I'm a "right winger" and damn prooud of it, but I want to know about every candidate whether they are left wing or right wing or middle of the road. I like to be informed and educated. Chris W. by your own admission, you prefer to stay uninformed.

James C. All I said was if you are sickened by the term "family values" then you have issues. Family Values is open for interpretation, if you choose to take it to mean that those without families have different values than those who do then fine. Folks without families live differently, they don't have the responsibility of raising kids, they don't have the responsibillty of keeping them fed, clothed, safe, educated etc.... I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a wad over the term Family Values.

FRED in '08,,,,It's TIME for a MAN like Fred!!

Sure Fred should run. Why wouldn't he? Even if you disagree with his politics, he has every bit as much right to run as anyone else. And really the republican party is gonna lose if it runs what is out there now.

Fred will STOMP the HIldabeast and Barak Hussein Obama hasn't a chance in hell, well unless the Muslim community bands together to get him in, as he is the "darling child" of the Muslim Left and Dimocrats.

Greg., Mitt and Fred are Master Degree graduates of the Art of Sell. As a consumer society American's are hooked on Brand Recognition, being part of the illusion that is sold as social, religious, and political. The issues matter little compared to the illusionary image one buys into as being part of the mass called Republican or Democrat. Americans love status.

It's Madison Ave all the way for most folks. Thinking about issues, working toward resolving issues demands effort and time. Both commodities most Americans would rather put to more personal endeavors. Yes, Mitt, Fred, Hillary, know the power of illusionary imagery, and Obama is learning. Brand Recognition sells.

That's why I refer to the Republican Party as the Republican Corporation, nothing less can be said of the Democrat Corporation. We've created these monsters to embrace in all the glory of a Republic that practices democracy once in awhile. Each generation must earn the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Our only salvation is to hold steadfast the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Either Party that tries to take away our Rights, like habeas corpus, is dancing with the devil, and our toes get stepped upon. Rights once taken seldom come back.

Greg, you have strong conservative beliefs, I have strong liberal beliefs, the winds of politics blows back and forth, when it is for dogma, we all suffer, when it is for social change or steadfastness that is the consensus of the public, hopefully we move forward. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is our bellwether of our core values. That's no Brand Recognition, that's the United States.

Compromise would be a good word for these candidates to place on the table of politics. And opening the doors for more viewpoints and participation in the body politics. The Green Party, the Socialist Party, let all Americans participate rather than the football mentality that winner takes all. The time has come for Proportional Representation. Let the shelves of Social/Political have many many Brands represented in this Republic.

Until then, we will have the Masters of Sell, playing the Super Bowl of Politics, winner takes all. In a country as divided has we are, a breaking point will come. Proportional Representation is the answer. A little revolution is good every once in awhile. Namaste.

Chris W., actually according to some reports I read recently the average divorce rate in the Red States is actually higher than in the Blue States. To be honest with you a recent trip from Vermont to Indiana shocked me to the extent that smut appears to be taking over the Midwest. For all the clamoring for family values out there, it appears to me that their agenda is not very effective. Perhaps they out to try out liberalism for a change.
Greg, been there done that -- as a retired minister friend of mine recently told me, the older I get the more Marxist I get. Kind of feel the same way. "The heart is slightly to the left."

to clarify- I said "waste of time" about Fred Thompson regarding his prospects of becoming President. In my view our nation craves a bit of moderation after a long stretch of partisan rancor. I am not touting Dennis Kucinich either, because i do not think we are looking for either political extreme.

Candidates must be careful what message they want to send. If they want to just run on a platform of wedge issues (Gays, Guns, God, Abortion, the Flag, insert your wedge issue here) that have nothing to do with people's daily lives, they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. If they identify too strongly with a certain group, they run the risk of not being able to identify with the population as a whole. I think way too many politicians are getting into the Presidential race. It's too early to be making promises and assurances. Most of these people bore me to death with their egotistical Presidential aspirations and bullshit.

I agree with Christopher C. that there should be other parties represented.
As it stands, an Independent or other third-party candidate can't even get equal representation in a Presidential Primary.

Cindy,

Even ice cream and watermelon (or whatever you like) can induce nausea when you get your face rubbed in it every time you turn around. I still say I didn't drop my values when my kids were grown, and I still have a concern for the same things in my grandkids and great grands. If the term has no connotation then why not loose it?

Is the phrase "traditional values conservative" less ambiguous? In this case, I have no trouble defining what it means and doesn't mean.

Greg,

I've no problem with traditional values conservative. Or with traditional values liberal, either one! Or, for that mater, conservative values middle of the roader, as that describes the majority of the US population.

Thanks, James C., as a 'middle of the roader', I appreciate the comment.