Fred Thompson: Federalist

Ken McCracken • November 6, 2007

This is a big reason why I’m a supporter of Thompson:

Senator Fred Thompson appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning….One thing I found notable about the interview was Thompson’s explicit commitment to federalist principles. . . .
Many politicians say such things. President Bush, for one, spoke quite a bit about the need for state flexibility when he was a Governor and a candidate, but seems to have forgotten about such things over the past six years. It appears Thompson actually means it, however, as he stuck to his federalist guns even when confronted with issues where many “conservatives” abandon federalism and embrace federal power. He even endorsed state autonomy where such a position meant rejecting policy positions favored by significant portions of the GOP base.

Federalism is a principle that is not always easy to be consistent on, but it is the bedrock principle upon which this country was founded. We abandon it at our own peril, even on issues that we’re really passionate.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

SOME OBVIOUS EXAMPLES:
1. Would you let Fred Thompson perform open-heart surgery on you? (Maybe Bill Frist! Would you like him better for President?)
2. Would you fly through bad weather in a 747 piloted by Fred Thompson? (No, that was Harrison Ford in Air Force One!)
3. Would you take a French Class taught by Fred Thompson? (No! That was John Kerry !You really do have eclectic tastes in Presidential candidates!)

BM: Does Mitt pay you by the word???
Would you let Bill In The Tank For Mitt Mitchell perform open heart surgery on you? Then obviously, he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time! (Okay, that one IS true, but the rest is unMITTigated nonsense!
Captain Obvious: You need to spend less time at the movies and more time in what we conservatives like to call: reality!
BTW, BM: Let us know how your heart surgery, 747 flight and French classes go with Mitt! I’ll bet you’re dying to try it!
Bill Mitchell

Ok, here are my MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS for the Presidency:

1. Must have been a leader of something major where the ultimate responsibility for its success or failure fell squarely on his/her shoulders.
2. Must have governed a major cite or state. Yes that means Senators and Congressmen need not apply.
3. Must have created, overseen and been held responsible for a multi-billion dollar budget.
4. Must have been responsible for the health and welfare of millions of people.
5. Must have raised government revenues without raising taxes.
6. Should be well-educated from one of our nation’s top universities. Graduate degrees preferred. Should have graduated near the top of their class.
7. Should have experienced success in business outside of government showing that they get the “real world”.
8. Should have authored major legislation that created real change that can be objectively measured.
9. Prefer they have a rock-solid family life that can be an example to our young of how marriage can work.
10. Should have major civic achievements outside of direct business or politics (e.g., saving the olympics from financial ruin and turning into a huge financial success).

Ok, there’s my list.

Mitt Romney passes with flying colors on EVERY SINGLE ONE of those requirements. Next in line would be Rudy Giuliani.

Fred Thompson DOES NOT MEET ONE SINGLE REQUIREMENT! NOT ONE!

Get it?
Bill Mitchell

Considering Fred Thompson is supposed to be the “Consistent Conservative”, where are his endorsements from leading social conservatives?

Romney is collecting them like Tom Hanks collects Oscars…
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

BTW: Most of the Romneyluns on TV are portrayed with pointy ears. At least Bill has the head for it!
Bill Mitchell

Kenny,

You are wrong on so many points, let me enumerate so you can follow:

“Romney won’t win the nomination. In overall polls, he is lagging behind Huckabee, who also doesn’t have a chance.”

National Polls have NEVER had ANY bearing on the outcome of a Primary Race. Bill Clinton was polling at 13% nationally on the date of the first Primary the year he won the White House. So saying Romney has no chance based upon national polling is just ignorant. He is far ahead or in a dead heat in all 5 of the early Primary States – that, historically, is what counts.

“The national media tends to get the candidates they want, and they want a Guiliani vs. Hillary race. That is the most likely scenerio.”

Well someone better tell the national media they want Hillary because they have been crucifying her all week.

“Romney is hardly a social conservative. He is pro-amnesty, and his abortion thing seems to be pandering. Romney’s a mediocre candidate at best, without a chance of winning.”

Romney has received more endorsements from major social conservatives in the last month than all other Republican candidates combined, and yet he is NOT a social conservative? You better call all those guys endorsing him because they are way off base.

BTW, Romney is NOT pro-amnesty and never has been. That was just a major spin job by Rob earlier to make that tortured argument.

I guess you would also claim that Ronald Reagan was a fraud since he was FAR MORE pro-choice than Romney ever was before he converted on the issue, or didn’t you know that?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Bill Mitchell is a Romneylun! Avowed enemies of the Frederation, the Romneyluns are known for their sneak attacks, like plopping a steaming pile of Romney endorsement in a post about Fred Thompson’s federalism!

BM: (aptly named!) get a reader blog and sing Romney’s praises to the skies if you like (or if your attention span hold out that long!)! But try to stay ON TOPIC in whatever thread you’re in. Is Fred a federalist or no? Give examples. Discuss among yourselves…try not to get distracted by shiny objects!
Bill Mitchell

THIS IS HILARIOUS!

Again, I go to a blog that has many Thompson Supporters. Again I ask for a list of his QAULIIFICATIONS for the White House and AGAIN I get nothing but double-speak.

It’s downright amusing. And oh yeah, Rob, National Polls mean nothing and you know it.

You couldn’t think of even one qualification your candidate has to be the Chief Executive of the whole friggin planet?

SOME OBVIOUS EXAMPLES:

1. Would you let Fred Thompson perform open-heart surgery on you?
2. Would you fly through bad weather in a 747 piloted by Fred Thompson?
3. Would you take a French Class taught by Fred Thompson?

No? Why not? BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER DONE THOSE THINGS! He has no experience. Get it?
Bill Mitchell

Folks, it’s OVER for Thompson. THIS from USAToday this morning:

Are social conservatives about to fall in line behind Romney?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/are-social-cons.html

Republican Mitt Romney today announced he’s been endorsed by Paul Weyrich, a leading social conservative who co-founded the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the Free Congress Foundation. At least one blogger sees this as a turning point for Romney.

“It’s Official: Romney is the Social Conservative Alternative,” Matt Lewis writes at Townhall.com. He says the endorsement signals social conservatives have given up looking for the perfect candidate and predicts more major figures will line up behind Romney. He also notes Fred Thompson’s refusal to support a federal abortion ban.

Some religious conservatives have been wary of Romney because he is Mormon and has opposed abortion rights only since 2004. Lewis is among several conservative bloggers who view the Weyrich move as a big deal, including Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, who broke the story.

American Spectator’s Philip Klein calls the endorsement “a major pickup.” At Hot Air, Bryan Preston says it “goes a long way toward blunting the the flip-flop charge and does quite a bit of damage to the idea that Romney can’t win over evangelicals. Weyrich is among the handful of activists who can claim to have been present at the founding of the social conservative movement, and he’s endorsing Romney.”
Bill Mitchell

Proof,

Thanks so much for posting. Your commentary is amusing in the same way that a crazy aunt in the attic is amusing.

Anyway, here is yet another nail in Fred Thompson’s political coffin:

Even Fred Thompson doubts he’ll be president
By Toby Harnden in Bedford, New Hampshire
Last Updated: 11:06am GMT 06/11/2007

Even Fred Thompson doesn’t think he will become president. Chatting off-air to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.

Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: “The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep.” Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: “And so do I.”

As some Thompson aides looked bemused and others cringed, a taken-aback Mr Cameron, Fox’s chief political correspondent, exclaimed: “You can’t do that kind of stuff!”
http://www.insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Well, Bill, not like any of that is remotely relevant to the current point, but regardless, there’s a simple truth you’re missing:

Romney won’t win the nomination. In overall polls, he is lagging behind Huckabee, who also doesn’t have a chance. The national media tends to get the candidates they want, and they want a Guiliani vs. Hillary race. That is the most likely scenerio.

Romney is hardly a social conservative. He is pro-amnesty, and his abortion thing seems to be pandering. Romney’s a mediocre candidate at best, without a chance of winning.

And this is stupid spamming.
Bill Mitchell

This is somewhere between AMAZING and HUGE for Romney:

November 5, 2007, 2:52 pm
Romney Lands Big Endorsement
By Michael Luo

Mitt Romney has landed a much-coveted endorsement from the social conservative world: Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and one of the founders back in the day of the Moral Majority.

Mr. Weyrich, who has been described as the father of the religious right and also founded the Heritage Foundation, had been critical of talk that broke out earlier this year among Christian conservatives about bolting the Republican Party if Rudolph W. Giuliani, a supporter of abortion rights, is the nominee and backing a third-party candidate.

So now it appears he is backing up that criticism with action, lining up behind Mr. Romney, despite questions many Christian conservatives continue to harbor about his relatively recent conversation from supporter of abortion rights to opponent and his Mormon faith.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/romney-lands-big-endorsement/

Romney haters, better get used to the sound of “President Romney”. His is surging in Iowa, NH and now SC and picking up one major Social Conservative Endorsement after another.
Puzzlefeet

Rob, are you talking national polls or Iowa or New Hampshire. If it is a national poll, those don’t matter at this point in time since we are in the primaries. He has to win the primaries to have those national polls mean anything. What do the Iowa poll and New Hampshire and SC say?
Bill Mitchell

Rob,

Since you are such a dedicated and informed supporter of Fred Thompson for President, perhaps you can share with all of us 5 THINGS FRED THOMPSON HAS DONE IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER THAT QUALIFY HIM FOR THE WHITEHOUSE:

Feel free to list the cities or states he has governed, the budgets he has written, the millions whose safety he has assured, the major laws he has authored, his great accomplishments in the Senate, his success as a Senior Business Executive, etc…

Don’t hold back now – I know you must have a million of them! Go for it. Impress me and who knows, if he is more qualified than Mitt, I may vote for him myself.

Go ahead, amaze me.
http://www.insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

National Polls have NEVER had ANY bearing on the outcome of a Primary Race. Bill Clinton was polling at 13% nationally on the date of the first Primary the year he won the White House. So saying Romney has no chance based upon national polling is just ignorant. He is far ahead or in a dead heat in all 5 of the early Primary States – that, historically, is what counts.

National polls are a sense of where people stand on any certain point. Of course the polls don’t influence elections…polls are a sampling of teh electorate. As such, even if flawed, they provide us a good picture into how the nation will vote. Even if Romney leads in a certain state, he is nowhere close to Guiliani in the national polls.

To this point:
Clinton lost the early primaries…when he was trailing in the polls. Due to some skillful campaigning, he came back. At no point did Clinton’s poll numbers and his vote tally fluctuate.

Well someone better tell the national media they want Hillary because they have been crucifying her all week.

Oh please. Where? The only people who ever criticize her are talk radio. There has been no “objective” media source that has criticized her in months.

Romney has received more endorsements from major social conservatives in the last month than all other Republican candidates combined, and yet he is NOT a social conservative? You better call all those guys endorsing him because they are way off base.
BTW, Romney is NOT pro-amnesty and never has been. That was just a major spin job by Rob earlier to make that tortured argument.

Yea hardly.
Romney said exactly what Rob claimed:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/RomneyPres08.html

“We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status.”

As to Reagan, he had a pro-choice background, but changed early. He didn’t have a “Oh wow, I’m pro-partial birth abortion, but now I’m running in a platform that would end me on such an issue.” He is little different than Guiliani on said issue. Next?

And as for the “What has Thompson done for us lately crap…we could say that about Romney to a much greater degree.

Go back to the silence from whence you belong.
docdave

Since you are such a dedicated and informed supporter of Fred Thompson for President, perhaps you can share with all of us 5 THINGS FRED THOMPSON HAS DONE IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER THAT QUALIFY HIM FOR THE WHITEHOUSE:

I see you’re still beating this dead horse. Since you are so adamant on this, can you explain in detail what in your opinion should be the qualifications of a presidential candidate, why these qualifications are necessary and which candidates exude them.
Lestat

Thompson won’t make it out of South Carolina. He isn’t dedicated to campaigning enough. He will lose big in Iowa and New Hampshire and the death watch will be on.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

By the way, I notice the latest polls have Romney behind Thompson, Giuliani and McCain.

That’s gotta hurt.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I wasn’t aware that politicians needed to work certain professions, or hold certain degrees, before they could be considered for the Presidency.

Is this not a nation of the people? And aren’t people more than governors and Senators and lawyers?

I’d vote for a pest control specialist if he/she would promise to limit government, cut spending, promote individualism, protect the borders and take national security seriously.

But that’s just me.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Fred Thompson: Federalist

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments