Comments on: THOMPSON’S UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM

By: Sly McNasty

Sly McNasty — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:50:34 +0000

Early on, I leaning towards Huckabee and Romney; however, the more I researched them, the more I disliked them. With Thompson, the more I researched him, the more I liked him. From what I found, Fred is Fred.

I would read articles negative to the candidate and research there responses and available records. All I would read was double-speak, sidestepping, pandering, or lies (record doesnâ€™t support what was said). Only one candidate (from either side, actually) did not do any of these things, Fred Thompson. He was always straightforward with an explanation of why he did or said what he did.

In one article, the author was trying to point out his inconsistency on his pro-life stance. What I read in his explanation was actually proving his consistency rather than inconsistency. He was consistent with his belief in the Constitution and our Republic and that it should never have been a Federal issue. Whether you agree with his point of view, or not, his voting was not a flip-flop; both votes were consistent with his beliefs.

The more I read, of him, the more I see a pattern of him being straight forward, and able to articulate what he believes and why he believes it and what it means to this country. I think heâ€™ll win, if he stays in long enough.

By: mad_cow

mad_cow — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:11:38 +0000

syn,

Very well said. I hope you don’t mind if I “borrow” a few lines. Your comment is on target. I hope conservatives in this country wake up. As for the National Review, I could not believe the editors endorsed Romney. Read what they had to say about Thompson on November 14.

http://tinyurl.com/3bkqgh

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:33:20 +0000

Just what I have come to expect at rightwingnuthouse and even the comments. Well thought out positions and even better thought out ideas. Thompson is the man for this season. We here in Iowa have got to show the rest of the country just what matters. Do we want Republican to mean Conservative or just come close? I plan to caucus this year for the first time. (I’ve been out of state for 30 years)I will do what I can to keep him moving.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:31:12 +0000

I don’t know yet whether it is just wishful thinking on my part, but I’m seeing the same dynamic that played out in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary and ultimately the general race here in Wisconsin. Russ Feingold had no money and no public-poll support throughout the primary race against Jim Moody and Joe Checota, but by playing up his underdog status, playing to the base of his party, and taking advantage of the mud Moody and Checota threw at each other, he took the primary with 70% of the vote, and then upset incumbent Bob Kasten in the general.

Now, the self-funded Mitt Romney and not-so-well-funded Mike Huckabee are trading body blows, while well-funded Rudy Giuliani has chosen a liberal-states stragedy (intentional misspell). Thompson is positioned to take full advantage of that.

By: edward cropper

edward cropper — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:09:55 +0000

It always boils down to what you as an individual voter really want from a candidate.
Are you willing to gamble on a candidate who may not be your perfect choice but hoping they will actually govern as they say they will in order to get your vote?
Will you stand aside and let the political process go by because none of the above suits your fancy?
Or will you hold your nose and close your eyes, then jab at the ballot and see where you land?
When the pickings are slim you are between a rock and a hard place.
Check my blog and see how I address the candidates in photo-composites.

By: tim zank

tim zank — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:13:41 +0000

I for one, find Fred’s approach refreshing and smart. He’s appealing to me because he has sound plans, a deliberate delivery,
and a very common sense attitude (and answers). The fact that he doesn’t appear to have the “fire in the belly” is manufactured bull#@$%. I’d like to know which reporter/pundit started that ball rolling.
I’ve said before on HotAir and numerous other blogs, I don’t want a cheerleader or a candidate that can do handstands or jumping jacks. I want a strong, conservative candidate (President) that shoots straight and isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade.
The 17 minute video is a must see!

Just listen to him, he’s the only one out there with a plan.

By: syn

syn — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:03:50 +0000

Speaking as one who was mugged by reality on 9/11/2001, as one who used to believe prior to 9/11/2001 that (even though I never listen to the man until 2003) ‘Rush Limbuagh was a right-wing nutcase out to destroy America’, as one who converted to the ideals found in Conservatism I am perplexed as to why so many established life-long Conservatives are gunning for candidates who are not really that Conservative.

Advocating lower taxes does not make a Conservative anymore than a pro-lifer advocating Statism makes a Conservative.

When National Review came out for Romney I found myself questioning what is becoming of the Revolution so many Conservatives proudly supported.

I think Rush’s phrase is something to the effect that ‘if one supports Liberalism one cannot be Conservatise (my memory of his saying is not quite exact)

Whenever I think about Romney, Guiliani or McCain I cannot help but feel I am voting for a Schwarzenegger or Bloomberg neither of which really held to their campaign promises, actually ended up governing as full-blown collectivist nannies. I live in NYC and recall Bloomberg running on the ‘tough on terror campaign’ only to end up telling NYers that ‘terrorism is no big deal and we should get a life’, Arnold’s time in California is a nanny-statist disaster.

Since I’m a convert perhaps I’m missing something about Conservatism which ends up supporting nanny-statism however, what bothers me about the top Centrists Republican candidates (ie Guiliani, Romney and McCain) is that when push comes to shove I’m not sure which side of the fence these candidates will comes down on; will they jump on populist fads or will they lead despite the need to please.

Thompson makes me feel like he stands for Conservatism, the others make me feel like they’re standing for Centrism and haven’t both Clinton and Bush governed as Centrists.

If the Republican establishment is gunning for Romney, Guiliani or McCain then they should lay of their whinning about how Bush has betrayed Conservatives. From my perspective it’s been COnservatives who betray the ideals by dropping their principles out of fear they’ll lose elections.

America needs a leader not a pandering-at-every-populist-fad people-pleaser.

If another Centrist is elected, I do beleive it will be the death of the Reagan Revolution and the end of Conservatism.

By: mary margaret cunningham

mary margaret cunningham — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:30:15 +0000

i totally agree with this article and i have not given up on fred thompson..