August 26, 2007

The Sobriety Of Fred

The Politico reports on Fred Thompson's latest speech in Indianapolis, and concludes that the soon-to-be candidate may have decided on a theme of even straighter talk than his friend, John McCain. The Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference got a sobering look at the challenges facing the nation from the former Senator, a surprising change from the normal upbeat presentations that other candidates normally give. Fred has a prescription for what ails America, too:

Fred Thompson thinks the country faces a tough road ahead and he's not glossing over the problems we face. In fact, he's anxious to outline the daunting litany and appears to be basing his forthcoming campaign on the assumption that his party shares the same outlook.

In a 25-minute after-dinner speech to attendees of the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference here, Thompson offered a stark assessment of what he described as America's perilous condition.

"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."

There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better its going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").

Since Thompson has not yet declared his candidacy, he cannot represent himself as the solution to these problems, nor can he give a detailed list of actions he would take, once elected. To do so would put him in danger of running afoul of the FEC, which already has received a complaint about the nature of Fred's exploratory campaign. Technically, this has to be a listening tour until he changes his status, which is expected to happen shortly after Labor Day.

He did talk about "first principles", and how they apply to these issues. Fred emphasized federalism and allowing the states to address their issues with their own resources. He wants to bolster the rule of law, protect private property as the linchpin of freedom, and rely on market economics to strengthen American prosperity.

Thematically, Fred will have no problem running a campaign on these principles. Once he declares, he will have to put these into specific policies, and as quickly as possible. He may also need to find ways to cast these policies in a more optimistic light, even while hitting Republicans with some cold truths about our standing at the moment, as he did in Indianapolis. People appreciate honesty, but Reagan didn't get elected by mourning in America.

That brings me to an announcement. I will have the opportunity to interview Fred Thompson tomorrow, if the timing works out correctly. What specific questions do CQ readers have for Fred? I'll take the best of them and try to work them into the interview, and you will be able to hear the results on tomorrow's CQ Radio show.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/12122

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Sobriety Of Fred:

» Fred Speaks in Indy from The American Mind
Saturday night, Fred Thompson spoke at the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference. He talked about some of the pressing issues facing the country while calling for leaders to move toward the first principles found in the Declaration of Independence a... [Read More]

Comments (54)

Posted by MarkT | August 26, 2007 9:11 AM

Serious question: is there some reason for calling him "Fred" instead of "Sen. Thompson"?

"Fred" sounds juvenile to my ears - maybe that's due to my years of cycling where a "fred" was the new guy that had no clue what they were doing.

Disclose: I am on the Left so this post could look like a concern troll, but I really am curious why "Fred" is the moniker of choice. Thanks.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 26, 2007 9:18 AM

In the beginning, it was to distinguish him from Tommy Thompson, who only left the race a couple of weeks ago. It's become a habit, but probably one I should break. It's not meant to be demeaning.

Posted by Carl Riggs | August 26, 2007 9:23 AM

With the potently negative outlook you've suggested for our country's future, what do you intend specifically to do as our next president to prevent having the opportunity to one day proclaim from the oval office, "See? I told you it was going to get bad."?

Posted by AW1 Tim | August 26, 2007 9:23 AM

Cap'n,

here's a question for the good neighbor from Tennessee:

"As President of these United States, you are also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Will you use your position to curb un-needed and un-wanted programs? By that, I mean there needs to be a top-to-bottom restructuring and rethinking of the way we develop and acquire new systems and programs for our military. In the past 20 years, it has been the Defense industry lobbying Congress for expensive programs that the military either does not want, nor needs. massive amounts of resources are wasted that way, and our military forced to develop doctrine for the systems we have, rather than developing systems to support the doctrines we want to use."

Respects,

Posted by FRNM | August 26, 2007 9:37 AM

"Is your selection of Spencer Abraham for your campaign staff a reflection that you share his views on immigration? If not, how do you differ?"

Posted by Jim C | August 26, 2007 9:41 AM

Captain,

I think it's great that we finally have someone addressing the problems we face as a party and a country right now rather than glossing over them like many of the candidates are doing right now.

Running the country is a serious business, and should be addressed in a sobering manner.

Jim C

Posted by Stephen Macklin | August 26, 2007 9:43 AM

"Senator, many commentators and political analysts are speculating that you may have waited too long to begin your campaign for the GOP nomination, and that you should have officially entered the race early in the summer when the 'buzz' around your campaign was at its peak. Do you or any of your advisors agree that you may have missed an opportunity? And if not, what do you perceive as the political advantage in delaying your announcement?"

Posted by sherlock | August 26, 2007 9:43 AM

As President, if you are faced with a Democrat-controlled (I won't say "led") Congress, how will you prevent the further de-funding of the missile-defence programs?

Posted by Richard | August 26, 2007 9:45 AM

He hasn't blame Bush for anything..He's got my vote...

Posted by Mr Michael | August 26, 2007 9:48 AM

Given that the Office of the President is a position of Leadership, how are you (Senator Thompson) going to transition from a Candidate who is running because the People want you run to a President who will lead because the People need to change?

I know I said it very clumsily... that's where you come in Cap'n! Senator Thompson has put himself up as a man who is running not because he has this lifelong desire, or has been training for it for decades, or who will lead the Republicans to Victory... but as a man who is running because the People have demanded it.

That would be fine for a Senator who represents the People... but what of the man who needs to LEAD the People? The President has to change the direction of his Party, his Government (including the bureaucracy) the Citizenry and the World.

That's going to be one heck of a transition.

He's certainly qualified on his beliefs; I'm a Fred Thompson supporter. But I'd like to know if he will be leading the Country, or just following the Polls.

Posted by Jim C | August 26, 2007 9:53 AM

I've got a question... If you are elected President how do you intend to modify our military to better face the challenges we face as a nation right now. In other words, do you forsee enlarging our military budget? Do you forsee enlarging our ground forces specifically? Do you forsee redeploying some of our troops put of western Europe to other areas where they can be of better use?

It seems obvious that we do not currently have enough troops (thanks to military cutbacks during the Clinton administration) to take on the challenges we face right now.

Jim C

Posted by felix | August 26, 2007 9:54 AM

Ditto to FRNM's question above.

Another question to Fred: In light of the problems we see in Europe with a Muslim population that appears increasingly hostile to the EU way of life, many of us want the US to adopt a policy that no jihad sympathizers or sharia proponents (as opposed to moderate muslims) be allowed entry to the USA. This would apply to all visa applicants--student, tourist, worker, etc. That the threat to our security and way of life is simply too great. Do you agree?

PS. I listen by podcast.

Posted by Weight of Glory | August 26, 2007 10:12 AM

If you could, please ask him to explain, in detail, his reason for supporting CFR. I really want to give him full support, but it is one thing that really bothers me.

Also, please ask him to give his understanding of Federalism, how Federalism can aid in solving the problems we face, and how his view of federalism jives with CFR.

Posted by InBama | August 26, 2007 10:12 AM

A few questions:
1. What's his plan to deal with Iran? Does he intend to use military force to prevent a nuclear Iran or not?

2. Is he an illegal alien amnesty supporter or not? What's his plan to deal with the illegal aliens?

3. Will nations that allow terrorists to train on their soil be treated as terrorist states? Will he be willing to cut off foreign aid to such nations?

Thank you.

Posted by InBama | August 26, 2007 10:14 AM

A few questions:
1. What's his plan to deal with Iran? Does he intend to use military force to prevent a nuclear Iran or not?

2. Is he an illegal alien amnesty supporter or not? What's his plan to deal with the illegal aliens?

3. Will nations that allow terrorists to train on their soil be treated as terrorist states? Will he be willing to cut off foreign aid to such nations?

Thank you.

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 10:18 AM

Senator Thompson:

1.) Do you endorse the concept of pre-emptive war?

2.) Should large amounts of American resources, both economic and military, be committed to "nation-building" around the world?

3.) Do you believe the American military should be used for the establishment of democracy in other countries?

Posted by eaglewings | August 26, 2007 10:34 AM

He has a major problem because the states are the first to run to the federal government and to give up their sovereignty for thirty pieces of US silver. Second, the Pentagon and Congress have a very cozy relationship thanks to their combined penchant to place as many projects (both needed and superfluous) in as many Congressional districts as possible (and more importantly in many of the districts of the relevant ranking and non ranking committee members) in order to assure passage of these projects. Given these realities it is extraordinarily difficult to gut wasteful projects, without risking the entire defense bill. This is where I give Pres Bush credit, for his veto of the dhimmicrats pork laded and unconstitutional supplemental defense bill. It was a little and there should have been more vetoes over the past six years, which had they occurred, would have led to repubs still controlling Congress.

Posted by Ted In Bed | August 26, 2007 10:42 AM

Three questions ...

1) Arabs and peace. Our policy is to continue to push Israel to make concessions to the Arabs including land and money. Each time Isreal makes a concession, the Arabs view it as a victory and as an encouragement to crank up the attacks. An example is Gaza.

An alternative path to peace in the middle east is tough love where the Arabs pay a high price for thier aggression. When Israel is attacked with motars or kidnappings, they can respond in self defense with military action. The land and assets they conquer becomes thiers, forever.

Which policy do you support ..... concessions or tough love?


2) Guns. The ATF is harrassing citizens and gun dealers. In Virgina, the ATF went to the homes of gun buyers prior to approving gun sales. In Washington, the ATF is shaking down Red's Trading Post for paperwork violations. How does a President reign the ATF in and make a culture change that respects the Constitution in that organization?


3) Automatic Weapons. Would a President, that views the 2nd Amendment as a check on government tyranny, lift the executive order signed by Bush Sr. banning the importation and new production of automatic weapons knowing that same background investigations would occur that do for currently legal automatic weapons?


Posted by Kate | August 26, 2007 10:48 AM

Senator Thompson,

What does it mean to be a conservative in America today? Is it any longer a conservative stand that the government that governs best, governs least? If not, what is the proper modern conservative stand on the extent of the power of government over individual citizens? If you are a conservative, how do you define that conservatism?

Posted by Kate | August 26, 2007 10:53 AM

Senator Thompson,

What does it mean to be a conservative in America today? Is it any longer a conservative stand that the government that governs best, governs least? If not, what is the proper modern conservative stand on the extent of the power of government over individual citizens? If you are a conservative, how do you define that conservatism?

Posted by John Klepper | August 26, 2007 10:54 AM

Sen. Thompson, why did you argue in favor of abridging the right to political speech, and would your reasons be used to trash other parts of the constitution?


Sen. Thompson, why can't you be more like Dr. Coburn with regards to spending, earmarks, and obfuscations in the senate?

Posted by John Klepper | August 26, 2007 10:56 AM

Sen. Thompson, why did you argue in favor of abridging the right to political speech, and would your reasons be used to trash other parts of the constitution?


Sen. Thompson, why can't you be more like Dr. Coburn with regards to spending, earmarks, and obfuscations in the senate?

Posted by NahnCee | August 26, 2007 10:59 AM

I would like you to ask the Senator if he supports building a fence along the Mexican border, and if so, what he would do to prioritize and hasten that project.

Also, I saw a picture the other day in the LA Times here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fence25aug25,1,1555869.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Is this *seriously* what our government is telling us that it's building, that costs so much, and that is taking so long?

Posted by Kate | August 26, 2007 11:03 AM

Senator Thompson,

What does it mean to be a conservative in America today? Is it any longer a conservative stand that the government that governs best, governs least? If not, what is the proper modern conservative stand on the extent of the power of government over individual citizens? If you are a conservative, how do you define that conservatism?

Posted by Kate | August 26, 2007 11:11 AM

Senator Thompson,

What does it mean to be a conservative in America today? Is it any longer a conservative stand that the government that governs best, governs least? If not, what is the proper modern conservative stand on the extent of the power of government over individual citizens? If you are a conservative, how do you define that conservatism?

Posted by vet66 | August 26, 2007 11:19 AM

Question for Fred:

How would you depoliticize the various intelligence agencies to make them effective in prosecuting the GWOT, a resurgent Russia, and a hegemonic Iran?

Posted by Tom Frank | August 26, 2007 11:43 AM

Senator Thompson;

1. Would you sign or veto legislation reimposing the 55 mph speed limit nationwide?

2. Would you be more inclined to appoint a doctor or an engineer to head the National Highway Traffic Safty Administration?

3. Would you be more inclined to appoint an accountant or an engineer to head the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transporation?

4. Would you require your head of DHS to revisit the existing policy regarding the Federal Flight Deck Officer (arrmed pilots) program to rapidly expand the pool? Would you consider making the FFDO program a REQUIREMENT to be a commercial pilot?

5. If you answer 4 in the affirmative, would you consider requiring DHS to revamp the existing air security system to concentrate much greater effort on explosives and much less effort on things like scissors?

6. And just to provide some meaningful information to the MTV types who might be thinking of voting, will you have a dog or cat as a companion while in the White House?

Posted by Conrad | August 26, 2007 12:26 PM

Senator Thompsom,

My question to you is if you were elected President of the United States who would you choose for your cabinet, (your team)? Specifically your Secratary of State?

Posted by steve poling | August 26, 2007 12:40 PM

Senator Thompson,

in response to pro-choice agitprop, you spoke of the attorney-client relationship and I appreciate that answer. Frankly, I do not understand what "the sanctity of life" means when the President says it.

Avoiding codewords, could you enumerate the reasons why citizens of the USA should be pro-life (or pro-choice) and what reasons you personally find most compelling for your pro-life (or pro-choice) position?

do you think abortion-law should be a matter of legislation or judicial fiat? and if you think it a matter of legislation, at what level of government (federal, state, municipal) should that legislation be enacted?

Posted by ajacksonian | August 26, 2007 12:53 PM

Senator Thompson - Do you believe in the concept of 'law of nations'?

If so will you use that to address terrorism?

Posted by FedUp | August 26, 2007 1:34 PM

1. Are you gong to tighten our borders and make an effort to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books now?

2. Are you going to finish the fence?

3. Are you going to support Israel against those who attack her?

4. How are you going to restore harmony(?) within the Congress - dealing with the Nancy and Harry show (should they still be in power?

5. Are you going to support the position of those loons that feel we should be giving captured terrorists all the rights and benefits of the American Judicial System?

Posted by FedUp | August 26, 2007 1:36 PM

1. Are you gong to tighten our borders and make an effort to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books now?

2. Are you going to finish the fence?

3. Are you going to support Israel against those who attack her?

4. How are you going to restore harmony(?) within the Congress - dealing with the Nancy and Harry show (should they still be in power?

5. Are you going to support the position of those loons that feel we should be giving captured terrorists all the rights and benefits of the American Judicial System?

Posted by Edward Cropper | August 26, 2007 1:48 PM

Mr. Thompson, why should I pay any attention to anything you say at this time since you are obviously seeking conservative support, and you will say just about anything you need to say to suck us in?
Why haven't you been speaking about the turbulent times in which we live prior to your current lust for the office of president?
The problems of this country are not recent events. What resume can you produce that will convince any of us that these disastrous problems have been a major concern of yours for the last several years?

Posted by Edward Cropper | August 26, 2007 1:58 PM

Mr. Thompson, why should I pay any attention to anything you say at this time since you are obviously seeking conservative support, and you will say just about anything you need to say to suck us in?
Why haven't you been speaking about the turbulent times in which we live prior to your current lust for the office of president?
The problems of this country are not recent events. What resume can you produce that will convince any of us that these
disastrous problems have been a major concern of yours for the last several years?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 26, 2007 2:08 PM

Oh, yes. This is a good speech.

The truth is Bush hasn't got the powers to use the "bully pulpit" well. So, hearing a sane voice, outlining where there are mistakes, is WONDERFUL.

Saying, that, however. Still encompasses the problems inherent in CONGRESS. Those idiots, free to "earmark" their bellies full of pork. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. And, McCain's been a real "feaster" too. So, no excuses.

Whomever heads the GOP ticket has been to be strong enough, nationally, to get mainstream voters on board.

THat's the failure that "could" face BOTH PARTIES.

As a matter of fact, Obama is only the tip of the iceberg for the dems. Once Blacks get a taste of this new "affirmative action" development; we will forever after be catering to special interest groups; IF they deliver MONEY OR VOTES. (The muslems deliver money.)

As to the "how to's" of politics; it's gonna get filthy-dirty ahead. And, the lawyers the donks have brought in to STEAL ELECTIONS, also still remains a threat.

The other "wound" that will never heal is the sore-loser nature you see in politics these days, where people, if they can't thrust up their "Ron Paul's," get physically repulsive. There's no cure in sight, either.

And, ya know what? Not only are the primaries coming too early ... to cure what? Iowa and New Hampshire? What did we lose, so far, with them going first? McCain? True, he couldn't pass go during the primaries, either in 1988 OR 2000. But if you think I care, I don't. McCain's a big driver on the BULL SHIT EXPRESS.

In my book? Iowa and New Hampshire don't need the parties to go and shuck stuff they don't like overboard.

And, the early primaries? I do expect they'll blow up at some point. Just because, randomly speaking, nature has a way of cutting out good horses. Sometimes, they'll get "scratched" as they're pulling up to the gate.

And, then all the gamblers can go and rip up their tickets.

I'll also bet that there are enough billionnaires out there, today, who might be tempted to do a "Ross Perot." And, jump in. No. NOt using Larry King Live! USING THE NET! That is a solution to reaching beyond the pundits. Directly at people who can read and vote. And, who aren't buying into any of the affirmative action games.

This stuff? It's designed to keep the few of us who pay attention, alert. But I doubt it amounts to a hill of beans.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 26, 2007 2:14 PM

Oh, yes. This is a good speech.

The truth is Bush hasn't got the powers to use the "bully pulpit" well. So, hearing a sane voice, outlining where there are mistakes, is WONDERFUL.

Saying, that, however. Still encompasses the problems inherent in CONGRESS. Those idiots, free to "earmark" their bellies full of pork. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. And, McCain's been a real "feaster" too. So, no excuses.

Whomever heads the GOP ticket has been to be strong enough, nationally, to get mainstream voters on board.

THat's the failure that "could" face BOTH PARTIES.

As a matter of fact, Obama is only the tip of the iceberg for the dems. Once Blacks get a taste of this new "affirmative action" development; we will forever after be catering to special interest groups; IF they deliver MONEY OR VOTES. (The muslems deliver money.)

As to the "how to's" of politics; it's gonna get filthy-dirty ahead. And, the lawyers the donks have brought in to STEAL ELECTIONS, also still remains a threat.

The other "wound" that will never heal is the sore-loser nature you see in politics these days, where people, if they can't thrust up their "Ron Paul's," get physically repulsive. There's no cure in sight, either.

And, ya know what? Not only are the primaries coming too early ... to cure what? Iowa and New Hampshire? What did we lose, so far, with them going first? McCain? True, he couldn't pass go during the primaries, either in 1988 OR 2000. But if you think I care, I don't. McCain's a big driver on the BULL SHIT EXPRESS.

In my book? Iowa and New Hampshire don't need the parties to go and shuck stuff they don't like overboard.

And, the early primaries? I do expect they'll blow up at some point. Just because, randomly speaking, nature has a way of cutting out good horses. Sometimes, they'll get "scratched" as they're pulling up to the gate.

And, then all the gamblers can go and rip up their tickets.

I'll also bet that there are enough billionnaires out there, today, who might be tempted to do a "Ross Perot." And, jump in. No. NOt using Larry King Live! USING THE NET! That is a solution to reaching beyond the pundits. Directly at people who can read and vote. And, who aren't buying into any of the affirmative action games.

This stuff? It's designed to keep the few of us who pay attention, alert. But I doubt it amounts to a hill of beans.

Posted by kreiz | August 26, 2007 4:07 PM

His attitudes toward aggressive energy sources- nuclear power, ANWR drilling, and the need for more refineries.

Conrad- I used to be interested in a candidate's answer to the cabinet question, but felt burned after 2000. I was favorably influenced by GWB's selection of Sec. of State Powell, only to discover that he ignored Powell's sage Iraq advice. Instead, we ended up with the steroided duo of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Alas.

Posted by Richard | August 26, 2007 4:18 PM

Senator, will you admit that Iran has been committing acts of war against us for many years, and therefore take appropriate action?

Posted by JOHN JAMES TERRY | August 26, 2007 4:24 PM

Where can those of us unfamiliar with your radio show find it? Is it possible to listen live streaming online?

JJTerry
Picayune, MS

Posted by CAPN BILLY | August 26, 2007 4:31 PM

Question for Fred?

What are your plans to have big enough coattails to regain seats in if not also control of Congress?

Posted by FRNM | August 26, 2007 4:38 PM

"What are your general thoughts on US participation in international agreements and treaties, and specifically, what are your thoughts on the US ratification of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea?"

Posted by Sturm Ruger | August 26, 2007 6:03 PM

Senator, as one of your stongest supporters and host of several blogs for Fred Thompson, I would appreciate hearing your answers to the following questions:

1. Given your admirable and strong support of a pardon for Scooter Libby, would you also be willing, as one of the first acts of your presidency, to pardon former border control agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned for shooting an illegal drug runner?

2. What specifically would you do as president to address the growing threat of communist tyranny in Latin America?

3. China is rapidly building up its military, and Russia is just as quickly rebuilding hers with cash from her oil and gas resources. How would a President Thompson respond to those two challenges?

Thank you, and God bless you.

Posted by Captain Joe | August 26, 2007 6:31 PM

Captain,
A question for Senator Thompson:
What specifically needs to be done to secure the borders of this country to stem the influx of illegal aliens?

Posted by Aria | August 26, 2007 6:40 PM

The NYT, Soros, and gang have been a major force in shaping the opinions of the many. They have twisted and turned so much good that has been done and gloify the most craven, family and country destroying lifestyles. They are certain to attempt to destroy any Republican President and his agenda.

How would you deal with them?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 26, 2007 6:45 PM

One of the things I like about Guiliani is that he's written about LEADERSHIP. And, the way his learning curve came about.

Because he ran and lost the New York's mayor's race, the first time, around. What he then did was spend the next four years buliding a whole adminstration. When, he won, because David Dinkins was a terrible mayor! He came in, and on the first day, he got to work.

He had a ring-binder full of people, whose resumes he had gone over with a fine tooth comb. ANd, he put into place a working administation.

One of Guliani's strengths is that he can work with the media! (Heck, that was FDR's strength,too.) And, yes, it makes a big difference when there's someone on top who doesn't get angry. ANd, isn't all "canned speeches." But who can respond to questions FAST.

Guiliani set up his organization. And, every department head was due in to a meeting Guiliani chaired every Thursday. Start time: 7:00 AM.

And, you had to be there! Around the table, you were expected to talk about the problems your agency was having. You couldn't hide this from view. Or expect "a private word with the mayor." Nope. PROBLEMS WERE PUT ON THE TABLE. And, by having ALL THE HEADS, together, more than one business genius was looking at solutions. And, offering them, too.

Nothing was hidden from the press, either.

There's no way in the world that everyone is gonna be happy with the man who gets the job in 2008.

But Bush's weaknesses all center around his inability to talk. He has not been able to embrace the American people. And, he cannot make a good argument; even about topics that are easy.

While, today, Obama (who won't get my vote), made a statement that he's better than Bush, because he's the UNITER. And, he'd work with Senators, Carl Levin and Warner! HELLO! Those two men are working against our policies in Irak! But stupid is as stupid does.

The other thing to notice? SOme insiders are pulling, now, for their own jobs. McCain? Well, at first he wanted the top of the ticket nomination. Then, he fell from grace. So I guess he let the word out "he'd be willing to be vice president."

Lincoln, too (and, you know I'm a fan of Lincoln stories!) Got people who were asking him for top jobs, who had absolutely no qualifications for them. Yet, Lincoln listened. And, steered these people away. (It's an art.)

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich is out there; playing the same tricks. He's already attached himself to Fred Thompson. Because yesterday's banner headline at Drudge said Newt's advising Fred to "come out" in a video.

So, there ya go. Lots of games are getting played.

Lincoln, by the way, had a team of men who were bending arms, to get commitments of support. But Lincoln was firm. You couldn't promise administattion jobs, just to get a commitment from a "clown."

And, back in Decatur (where LIncoln spent TWO YEARS PREPARING FOR THE 1860, run), a lot of politicians, not seeing Lincoln as their favorite, still knew they'd all be OUT OF GOVERNMENT JOBS, if a loser (someone without national political appeal), ended up in the top slot.

What's next for US? I dunno. Nobody does.

But the one thing I don't see, yet, and yet I expect to see it, is the number of men who are gonna run as independents. Oh, yeah. Including Newt, if he can find suckers to fund it.

Where would "independent run" money come from? Well, Ross Perot had enough to do it all for himself. But he was crazy.

Rich and crazy.

Perhaps, that's a clue?

Posted by Old Friend | August 26, 2007 7:22 PM

Try to pin down his position on Guns.

Ask him if he was in favor of the Brady Bill and his current position on an Assault Weapons Ban.

He wrote that essay criticizing Rudy Giuliani and New York City's gun laws but didn't give any hints about his own beliefs. Try to get him to spell out specifics. He'll throw at you generalities like "I support the 2nd amendment", etc.. Pin him down!

Make news man. Try to get him to go after Rudy Giuliani. Ask him if he thinks Rudy is a Conservative. Don't waste time asking when he is gonna announce cause he is not gonna tell you. Just assume he is a candidate and give him a chance to target his opponents.


Posted by Jody Green | August 26, 2007 9:02 PM

Questions for Fred:

1. How do you view the U.N.? Are they friend or foe to the U.S.

2. Much of what the world perceives about the United States is based on wildly biased news reporting by both domestic and international news organizations. As a Republican (Already a deficit)what can be done to get a more accurate picture of the U.S. to the world.

3. As someone with no or very little Executive experience, are you comfortable with the job of POTUS that has grown into a very complex Executive position. Some would say it is so complex, nobody can effectively run this country. At the same time, we do not have the accountability in any department in government that we have in business. How would you address this growing problem.

Posted by Ray | August 26, 2007 9:22 PM

Mr. Thompson, As President, would you veto any bill which would impose some form of the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio?

Mr. Thompson, As President, how would you respond to further demands to increase taxes?

Mr. Thompson, As President, what is the most dangerous situation this country will face in the next 10 years?

Mr. Thompson, iI you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? (Hay, I didn't want the Barbara Walters fans to feel left out!)

Posted by KJBtruth | August 26, 2007 10:16 PM

Hi. I will keep this very short.

My questions are:

1. "Will you use your authority as President to issue an Executive Order ending federal aid to so-called "sanctuary cities" until they comply and cooperate with INS, ICE and other federal immigration authorities?"

2. "Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of many United States servicemen and women. Why are the brazenly hostile acts towards our personnel in the field NOT considered an act of war??"

3. "I, like many other conservatives wanted that border controlled on September 12th, 2001. Why has it taken over six years to even consider this issue (which goes directly to American sovereignty), and what will you do to secure our borders IMMEDIATELY?"


Thanks,
Ken

misplaced Tennessean in Wisconsin,
and a proud grad of ETSU.

Posted by Scotty | August 27, 2007 12:21 AM

My salient questions, culled from the comments above:

1) Why continue financing and membership of the UN?

2) Will you expedite the building of the border fence (a REAL fence)?

3) Will you support sanctions on "sanctuary cities"?

4) Will you recognise the warlike actions of Iran and act accordingly?

5) How will you attempt to control the earmark outrages?

His answers to these questions will define the man.

Posted by brooklyn | August 27, 2007 1:40 AM

Captain...

I am sorry, but I encountered Fred Thompon's comments with regret.

This is no Ronald Reagan, who believes the USA can do...

But then again, a number of the Conservative Pundits have embraced the most negative mannerisms.

Questions for the former Senator?

Why won't you promise not to raise taxation?

What did you do to stop illegal immigration while you were in the Senate?

What is your experience as a Chief Executive Officer?

Why did you vote for John McCain's regretful Campaign Finance Reform fiasco?

Posted by SCATTERSHOT | August 27, 2007 8:12 AM

For AW1: There are many examples of failure on the part of military brass to realize the potential of new, untried technology. Think battleships vs aircraft carriers. (Pardon me Navy guys. It is just the first thing that comes to my mind.) Read the history of Leroy Grumman's company, for a good example of industry / service interaction.

For Carol Herman: I was living in Huntsville during the Goldwater/Johnson election. Every county in Alabama, except for two, went for Lyndon. The response from the politicians was the creation of a rival Space Center in Houston. They, in turn, squandered our national leadership in Space Exploration. Thirty years wasted. Ross Perot got me interested in politics. I worked for his campaign. I voted for him, even after he withdrew, to express my disgust with the existing system. I was one, among 20 million others. Were we heard ? I think we were,by each other, but were ignored by the establishment. The internet is changing that. It sure is better than writing letters to a newspaper editor. Don't be so dismissive of ol' Ross. Think of the greater good.

Posted by Chris | August 27, 2007 9:42 AM

For Sen. Thompson: Leadership often involves getting others invested in an idea. One way to do so is to include them in the discussions concerning an issue. Right now, we cannot get both parties to even agree that a problem exists on a given subject (i.e., immigration, Social Security, the GWoT, etc). Would you encourage the establishment of bipartisan committees to look at major issues and then insist that party leadership help control public partisan dissent? By this I mean assuming that both parties look into say, SS and say, by golly there IS a train wreck up again. Until now we've had all kinds of political points being made by members saying "No there's not". This public dissent kills any chance of public support gaining traction and nothing changes. Except the train keeps getting closer... Thank you.

Posted by Conrad | August 27, 2007 4:07 PM

Kreiz - good point. My interest in asking the question of who would be in his cabinet and secretary of state is to see where his head is on our country's priorities and how much preparation he has put into his posible run for president. One can find out much about a person by looking at those around him or her.

To me your questions for Senator Thompson are very good ones, however, my feeling of priority for the country is getting a handle on the war with Iraq - above all else right now.

Many people around my area want us to pull out of Iraq - this includes friends. The media has done a lousy job in portrying the war and many do not really know what is going on with this.

They need to hear from our troops what they think since they are the ones on the front lines. People need to see the graphics of what our soldiers are dying for. People here are indifferent because they are not shown the real scenes of war on the television, nor are they told the story from the ones doing the fighting.

They say we support the troops - the troops - why not say I support our troops. This is BS because if they really supported the troops they would be doing it with their patriotism.

Post a comment