Captain's Quarters -

Another thing that recommends Fred Thompson is his comfort outside of the conservative bubble. It's a good bubble, but it's still a bubble. Hollywood is definitely outside. Listening to, and knowing how the other side--the liberal "good intentions" side--sees and hears the world, is a great help to improve persuasiveness and keep the foot out of the mouth. That's very important these days. Ask candidate George Allen.

Well, just look at him. He oozes charm and manliness. This woman has always loved him.

Being a good date doesn't rank high on my credentials list for POTUS. Anyway, 3 out of a bunch o' women who'll likely be dragged outta the shadows (once ole frisky Fred signs on the dotted line) may not be the endorsement he'll want. The fact that Fred punctuated a reference to his single life with a wink to a group of men is not an endearing trait, if you know what I mean.

Just sayin' .... what happens in DC doesn't stay there.

I wonder what it would look like if you put together a Fred Thompson / Michael Steel ticket?

"Vote Fred for President! His old girlfriends still like him!"

The Captain's post might be humorous as an example of extreme trivialization of Presidential politics, except that the Presidency is much too serious to even start down that pathway.

The real problem that the Thompsonites have is their man has never accomplished anything, nothing, nada, not a thing, as a leader or administrator. Thompson has never managed any enterprise, ever, neither government nor private sector. Not anything, nothing, nada, not a thing.

Thompson served barely more than one completely undistinguished term in the US Senate - one of 100 yammering voices ... and the only legislative effort he ever even helped to lead was the infamous McCain-Thompson-Feingold campaign finance "reform". That's it for 8 years in the Senate. He even voted to acquit Clinton.

That is why Thompsonites like the Captain have to resort to silly trivia to hype their guy. Once Thompson gets into the thick of a real campaign (assuming he ever stops his game-playing on the announcement) with the serious candidates, his faux popularity is likely to drop like a hot rock. Just like the Wizard of Oz coming out from behind the black curtain, and reveals himself to be a .... dowdy snake oil salesman, and not the All Powerful Oz! ... the game will be up (just like it was four years ago for a certain ex-General Democrat who also led the polls in the summer doldrums).

America deserves a serious, qualified President who can take the heat in the kitchen and "give'em hell" back ... America does not need another serial satisfier (?) of numerous girlfriends (already been there, done that with BJ Clinton).

What about health issues? Will the women testify to his wisdom in that area?

Duane wrote: "The real problem that the Thompsonites have is their man has never accomplished anything, nothing, nada, not a thing, as a leader or administrator."

Let's turn the Ruger fire dragon loose on this straw man, shall we?

As Watergate minority counsel, Fred Thompson coordinated and led the efforts of the minority staff in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

As a lawyer, his representation of a fired whistleblower led to the downfall of a corrupt Tennessee governor.

Fred Thompson went to Washington with a basic belief that the federal government should be smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. To make that goal a reality, he worked for and achieved a string of significant reforms, becoming what USA Today called, "a leader on a range of clean-up Washington issues."

As a Senator, Fred Fred courageously led the effort to kill S507, which would have destroyed our country’s patent system, giving away many American innovations to foreign firms and governments.

As a committee chairman, Thompson worked with the General Accounting Office to unveil the first ever audit of the federal government. He brought considerable pressure to bear on federal agencies by holding hearings on mismanagement and getting them to add up the improper payments they made each year. As a result of his efforts, agencies are now required by law to disclose their annual overpayments, a practice that is credited for saving the taxpayers billions in HHS overpayments alone.

Fred Thompson led by example in the Senate, leaving a record on spending which puts the field of presidential contenders to shame, a record even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. He set another example by proposing to limit Senators to two terms, and he resigned from the body after serving a term and a half. His tireless efforts for government that didn't spend more and stayed out of people's private lives is just a part of Thompson's widespread appeal.

He has also consistently supported increased funding for the military, with particular emphasis on expanding the force structure to deal with known threats, building new weapons and providing better training for our armed forces.

Sen. Thompson authored the Government Information Security Act, which was signed into law. It provides a new framework for protecting the government's computers from outside attack by hackers, foreign and domestic.

After the Senate, Fred Thompson led the effort to guide the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts through the minefield known as the U.S. Senate. His gravitas and powers of persuasion smoothed the way for Roberts' confirmation.

There's much more, if you only bother to look for it. But to summarize to this poiint, Fred Thompson led in the efforts to bring down a bad president and a corrupt governor, stop bad legislation in its tracks, save the taxpayers billions, increase the real security of the nation and ensure confirmation of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frederalists know that our man has accomplished much, many things, muchos, plenty of things, as a leader.

Oh, but don't you know, he (gasp!) got his girlfriend pregnant in high school (and married her and stayed married  to her till the kids were grown up).  That is so '50s! How could any modern woman vote for a man so old fashioned?

George Morgan's little girl has had a major fan following from the time she was 13. Her endorsement is worth votes (as if he was going to need help pulling in the C&W and NASCAR crowd.)

I'm just getting my 2007.06.24 Decision '08 Roundup started but I just added a link to your post.

I find something vaguely creepy about Fred Thompson, but I can't put my finger on what it might be. I'm not sure this story helps.

Bill Faith wrote: "Oh, but don't you know, he (gasp!) got his girlfriend pregnant in high school (and married her and stayed married to her till the kids were grown up). That is so '50s! How could any modern woman vote for a man so old fashioned?"

Maybe there are some scruples in this world after all !!!! There are actually folks out there who care about supporting someone they get pregnant.

Amy wrote: "I find something vaguely creepy about Fred Thompson, but I can't put my finger on what it might be. I'm not sure this story helps."

Amy, why do you point your browser to www.draftfred.com and look around. Maybe the creepy feeling is the feeling you get thinking of McCain in office?

Win Fred Win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sturm Ruger - you make my point exactly. All of that stuff you list as Fred's lifetime accomplishments can be met or exceeded by at least a couple million or more other career lawyer/politicians around the country, most of whom would never be qualified to serve as mayor of a medium sized city or governor of a little state. We're talking about electing the President of the United States, leader of the free world, Commander in Chief, and defender of the world's leading bastion of freedom.

America has had some bad Presidents in its past - mainly those who weaseled their way into the job through sheer political maneuvering and an effective media campaign, and not because of either great personal skill, proven leadership, or a lengthy resume of proven administrative success. But even the worst ones had at least a scintilla of a resume ... i.e, Jimmah Cahtah at least was a Governor of a medium-sized state, and even BJ Clinton was Governor of a little state for multiple terms ... and a few others of the bad ones were successful Civil War generals. Of course, a few guys ascended to the job when the incumbent did not survive his term, and had to undergo intense on-the-job training, with some doing better (TR) and some doing worse (LBJ). If Fred Thompson were somehow elected President (which is extremely doubtful) he would rank among (if not lead) the least qualified candidates in our nation's history ever to win the job. Not only would Thompson make a bad President, he wouldn't even make a decent VP candidate ... because the VP ought to be qualified to immediately take up the reigns upon the death or incapacitation of the incumbent.

Take the one guy to whom Thompsonites like to compare their guy (completely unsuccessfully): the great Ronald Reagan. What separates the Great Communicator from the Great Pretender? Well, for one, Reagan began by graduating from being a mere actor (like Thompson) to running the screen actor's union in the 50s. From there, he began his political career, pushing for a conservative revolution after the massive failure of the Goldwater campaign in '64. Reagan was elected twice as Governor of California, the nation's largest and most dynamic state, and over two full terms in that job he revolutionized California governance. Reagan then ran for President in '76, nearly taking out the incumbent Jerry Ford. Then Reagan whomped the entire field of Republican wannabes in '80, before humiliating the feckless Jimmah Cahtah in the general election. Whereupon he revolutionized the Republican Party and America's role in the world. Reagan's ultimate success as President is easily comprehended today when one analyzes the arc of his lifetime career, and considers his long-recognized devotion to conservative governance, and when one reviews his success in applying such conservative governance to real life, as opposed to theoretical, situations.

Exactly none of which career-long devotion to cause or demonstrated performance on the job is evident in the resume of Fred Thompson.

Let's put it this way - and all the head to head polls show this already, to an overwhelming degree - if Fred Thompson is the best that the GOP can put forward in 2008, then say hello to President Hillary Clinton! by a landslide.

Duane... methinks thou doth protest too much. You argue with obvious passion. Arguments aside, nobody generates that kind of emotional output without a reason. So... what motivates you to put such an effort into derailing the Thompson candidacy? I have little use for John McCain, but I can't imagine starting an active campaign to hobble his candidacy. You see, I know that come November of 2008, I'm going to have to vote for someone, and that someone may not be the candidate I prefer. While I think McCain is a crappy Republican and an even worse conservative, I see him as the second coming compared to Hillary. So I resist the impulse to poison myself and others against him.

Seriously, what's your story? Do you support someone else? If so, why not promote them rather than investing yourself in what might appear to be petulance because another candidate seems to be riding a popular tide?

Sturm - as an example, let me take just your lead item in Fred Thompson's mundane resume: he "coordinated and led the efforts of the minority staff in the impeachment of Richard Nixon".

And your point with this little gem is? What great accomplishment does this little bullet belie? How did Thompson's bureaucratic lawyering help the nation? Did he save Nixon's skin? Or did he single-handedly unmask the smoking gun that took down the Watergate conspiracy? Or did he simply push paper and try to match wits unsuccessfully with Hillary Clinton, who served on the majority counsel's team? The opposing team that won that time, and got their scalp. And we're supposed to be impressed by that?

And you claim Thompson left the Senate after "leaving a record on spending which puts the field of presidential contenders to shame."

Well, I just don't see Thompson's name anywhere in any list of elected chief executives, of any government entity anywhere at any level (even Tennessee Dog-Catcher-in-Chief) - the executives are the guys and gals who are actually responsible and directly held accountable for spending taxpayer money. Thompson was just one of 535 guys who voted on budgets that are proposed and administered by the President. The only way that any individual Senator or Congressman can exert leadership on legislative budget matter decisions is to be a Budget/Approrpriates Committee chair, or to chair one of the major committees such as Defense or Public Works, or to serve as Senate Majority Leader, ... and of course all such positions require that a legislator have earned seniority, which would require more than 1 1/3 term in the Senate, which is all that Thompson was willing to invest in his budgetary leadership "career" over a grand total of 8 years. And of course, he said to an interviewer that he left because he didn't really want to work that hard and take all the abuse involved in politics.

How's that for political courage?

Compare Thompson's actual "accomplishments" (I use quotes because the term hardly applies to the former Gentleman from Tennessee) on budgetary management to what Rudy Giuliani did as Mayor of NYC over two full terms. He, unlike Thompson, was responsible for proposing a budget, and getting it through his legislative branch, and then personally taking the heat from all the citizens who would have to pay the taxes and/or see their services cut, and then take the shots from all the relentless special interest groups whose oxes would have to be gored in order to carry out a conservative legislative agenda. Giuliani did all of that over two full terms as mayor of America's largest and most (until his administration) dysfunctional city (a city whose population and annual operating budget exceeded that of all but a small handfill of States) that happened to be the news media capital of the nation. Talk about intense coverage and scruitiny! Thompson couldn't even take the heat from being a back bencher from a small southern State.

And through all of that, Giuliani cut taxes, cut the bureaucracy, cut the welfare rolls, successfully beat back the special interests - the Al Sharpton race baiters, the public workers unions, the teacher's unions, etc etc. - and actually produced results. Giuliani literally turned NYC from a ghastly, dysfunctional, crime-ridden, bankrupt failure into the dynamic, infinitely more-livable city that bravely - as led by, and as heroically symbolized by, His Honor - withstood the terror attacks on 9/11.

Not to mention Giuliani's prior stint as the Federal prosecutor who took down the Mafia and the corporate thieves who bilked millions of their billions on Wall Street.

Really - Thompson would barely qualify to be one of Giuliani's prosecutors ... it's just incomprensible that Giuliani's actual proven accomplishments can in any way be compared with Thompson's mundane, blase on-again, off-again career flitting back and forth between low level lawyering, acting, and one-of-hundreds legislating.

Immolate - I answered your question about who I support. Am I passionate? When it comes to selecting the guy or gal who will have more to do than anyone else in the world with protecting me and and my family from Islamic Jihadists, and protecting me and my pocketbook from grasping Democrats, am I passionate? You betcha!

Am I petulent? Hey, I'm just reciting facts that anybody who bothers to do a little research and thinking can easily figure out for themselves ... that is, if they are not all too willing to be duped by a smooth-talking media-savvy lawyer-turned actor-turned legislator-turned actor (again) whose idea of political courage is to tease his supporters and bore his critics with a non-campaign campaign.

Oh, and I think that possibly the most overused and unintelligible political meme/comeback phrase in America is to pretend to quote Shakespeare with that old faux-literary "doth protest too much" line. C'mon, if you're going to promote the candidacy of Fred Thompson, give us something of substance, and not just more of the same-old/same-old rhetoric that is never backed up by real action or facts.

Nothing like composing a long reply and then closing the window.

In any case, you missed the central point of my reply to you Duane. Support your candidate. Don't denigrate the others. What good does it do to get Rudy the nomination if half the Fred supporters won't vote for him because of hurt feelings and bruised egos? If Rudy wins, I'll vote for him and be happy to have such a fine candidate to pull the lever for. The same goes for Mitt, and even for John.

I don't begrudge you your support of Rudy and I don't think you're stupid or even wrong for it. I think that he appeals to you because you are a unique person with unique experiences that Rudy's candidacy makes a connection with. I make the same connection with Fred, and his resume has little to do with it. And before you jump to conclusions and try to pigeon-hole me, I seldom watch television and I find Law and Order to be smug and self-righteous.

OTOH, if you're a liberal troll, you're taking exactly the right approach.

I would agree with Duane that Rudy has more experience and - from a resume standpoint only - would beat Fred Thompson hands down.

However, I'm backing Fred because - unlike Rudy - Fred believes in federalism. We need to get the federal government out of the social policy issues and grand social engineering schemes. We don't need the federal government to continue its massive bloat on entitlement programs. Those sorts of things are better left to the states, where the politicians are inherently more responsive to their constituents. Absent a true commitment to the principle of federalism, all the campaign promises of "economic conservatism" are nothing but lies, as demonstrated by the monstrosity that is GWB's "compassionate conservatism." If you don't cap the powers of the federal government, you will never cap its spending.

Keep the federal government lean and strong on it's Constitutional powers, primarily national security (Note that although he's a federalist like Ron Paul, Fred is not a libertarian).

Nevertheless, I would still be happy with Rudy as president, simply because he "gets it" on Islamic terrorism. That's despite the horrible effect Rudy would have on the judiciary and economy. Fred also "gets it," but he doesn't have the domestic authoritarian baggage.