Fred Thompson to enter race on July 4?

Tennessee’s own Fred Thompson is apparently revving up the campaign engines for a presidential bid.

32 Responses to “Fred Thompson to enter race on July 4?”

  1. V says:

    Does this mean he’s quitting Law & Order?!

  2. marty west says:

    No shot. Why waste the money running?

  3. Gardner says:

    He is already done with law and order. I think he does have a shot with the republican base. He’s more socially conservative than The Mayor, and is against the McCain illegal immigration bill. I can easily see him getting the social base (presumably from Romney) and pulling votes from McCain and The Mayor on security. He’s very big on the right-leaning blogs.

  4. Marty,

    Thompson is already polling in double digits before entering the race, so saying he has no shot really doesn’t add up.

    If anything, Thompson entering the race is going to have a negative on all three of the top tier Republicans (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) in one way or another. The biggest loser, though, will probably be Romney who was counting on attracting conservatives who will probably now go with Thompson.

    But maybe you’re right……

    An actor as President ? Who ever heard of such an absurd idea ?

  5. 3L No. 108 says:

    To be fair, he was a lawyer and Hill staffer before becoming an actor . . .

  6. marty west says:

    He’s a turd. Nothing more.

    Maybe he thinks he can “re-unite” the strict conservatives in the Republican camp…but the times are changing.

  7. ceiliazul says:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

    On The Issues:
    pro-life
    against special treatment for minorities
    mixed on education + pro-vouchers
    environment: drill it and kill it
    supports free trade
    pro-gun
    mixed on immigration
    pro personal savings (instead of SocSec)

  8. Angrier and Angrier says:

    The guy is a placeholder for Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich jumps in, people will say, “Fred who?”

  9. 4-7 says:

    A*A, I bet people are more likely to trust Thompson than Gingrich. Gingrich is putting a lot of eggs into the healthcare basket and if that recedes as an issue in 2008, I don’t know how he can hang his hat with a shoot from the hip reaganesque conservative charasmatic like Thompson. I bet you Gingrich is absolutely steemed that T is running.

  10. Angrier and Angrier,

    Gingrich ? You’re kidding right ?

    I mean I like most of what Newt has to say. He even rights a decent book.

    But the man has so much baggage it’s not funny.

    Do you really think he’d be able to live down the story about serving his first wife with divorce papers while she’s recovering from cancer ?

    Personally, it doesn’t bother me but I know it will bother alot of people, particularly alot of people who vote Republican.

  11. And yes,

    rights should have been writes

  12. Brendan Loy says:

    Hillary Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich?

    Wake me when it’s 1996. Oh wait.

  13. Nadine says:

    Fred Thompson looks EXACTLY like my dad! It would be strange to see Thompson doing campaigning and not think it was my father making those statements…

  14. Andrew says:

    I love Newt, but he ain’t got a chance. The media bagged him down early in the Clinton-Newt wars, and he’s permanently damaged.

  15. Briandot says:

    Anybody keep up with Novak’s column? He’s practically given Thompson a Justis Richert twice now.

  16. Brendan Loy says:

    Heh… nice blog-post cross-reference there, Briandot… I like it. :)

  17. gahrie says:

    I’ve been on Thompson’s bandwagon since early January. I’m betting that when he enters the race he’ll immediately become the frontrunner. Several political operatives have already left the campaigns they were working for so they will be available for him.

  18. Sandy Underpants says:

    Doug, Republican voters don’t hold republican politicians to the standards they pretend to have, or else Bush/Cheney wouldn’t have gotten any votes from them, let alone win re-election.

  19. Aaron says:

    This is as good a place as any to note that a lot of conservatives are really, really mad at Bush over the immigration bill. That’s what happens when the President does something with which you profoundly disagree, and then tells you that by disagreeing with him you don’t want to do what’s right for America. You get mad.

    Me? I’m giddy. Sooner or later, everyone gets BDS.

  20. Joe Mama says:

    No, Aaron, BDS is believing that Bush is wrong no matter what he does. Exhibit A is David K. Conservatives are mad at Bush over the immigration bill because they believe it is bad on the merits, regardless of whether Bush supports it (which just goes to show that conservatives are not lock-step behind Bush). Of course, conservatives haven’t been happy with Bush for a while now because he isn’t nearly the conservative that liberals and Democrats make him out to be . . . the immigration bill is merely the latest manifestation of this.

  21. Joe Mama says:

    Briandot,

    I keep up with Novak’s column. I’m not sure which previous column you are referring to as the first “oral favor,” but this column from May 7 certainly wasn’t one of them.

  22. Aaron says:

    Oh, come on Joe Mama. One man’s “wrong no matter what he does” is another man’s “wrong on the merits.” Unless you mean literally wrong no matter what he does, which is a category few people belong to. I bet David could point to cases where he’s praised Bush. (But I have no intention of getting into the middle of an argument between the two of you.) If you think someone is wrong on the merits often enough, eventually you’re going to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    Now, if you just mean that, in the process of being really mad at the President, some people make poorly though out or even hysterical arguments, then fair enough. But don’t try to pretend that conservatives have the high ground here. If this is the decade of BDS, then the 90’s were the decade of CDS.

  23. Aaron says:

    ps. I agree with your analysis of Bush’s “conservatism” I have a similar complaint about Hillary Clinton’s supposed liberalism. Though I will concede that she is probably more of a liberal than Bush is a conservative.

  24. Brian Foster says:

    I took Joe Mama to mean only that conservatives being mad at Bush over immigration != BDS, in response to the suggestion that conservative anger on that issue shows that “sooner or later” everyone gets BDS. I didn’t detect any attempt to suggest that conservatives were “above” _DS. As you mention, the 90s disprove that notion pretty effectively. But the very definition of _DS, it seems to me, is the condition whereby one reflexively assumes _ is wrong, regardless of the issue or argument, and only very reluctantly and rarely will admit otherwise. As such, conservative disagreement with Bush on immigration, or prescription drugs, or government spending, or education, etc. etc., is not evidence of BDS, whereas liberal (or any, really) disagreement with Bush that automatically and initially interprets every program, every utterance, every appearance, as another calculated step on the path to Constitution-shredding dictatorship, is.

    (And again — the roles were quite reversed in the last decade when the affliction was CDS. No argument to the contrary here.)

  25. Aaron says:

    That’s a fair way of putting it Brian. and if i misinterpreted what Joe Mama was saying, then my bad. I guess it didn’t really come across this way, but when I said “Sooner or later, everyone gets BDS” that was at least partially tongue-in-cheek. Of course there are people with BDS as you have defined it. My complaint is with how often the term is thrown around without basis.

    I do honestly wonder though, if being told that they “don’t want to do what’s right for America” simply because they disagree with the President’s immigration policy, creates a little simpathy among conservatives for the way those of us on the left have felt about Bush for a long time.

  26. Aaron says:

    I recall awhile back the subject of Bush Hatred came up here, and the question of whether it is, in and of itself, an indication of BDS. I rejected the idea and pointed to the famous (in the internet punditry sense) article by Jon Chait in The New Republic titled “The Case for Bush Hatred.” He wrote the article almost four years ago, and could no doubt improve on the argument today. I don’t expect everyone to hate Bush, but I won’t be told I’m deranged for doing so.

    The term “hate,” of course, requires some explanation. I don’t hate Bush in the viscerraly emotional sense; the sense that is meant in the phrase “hate crime.” I hate Bush in the same sense that I hate reality television shows or acorn squash. That is, I find in them little or no redeeming value. Of course, I can change the channel and I can pass on the squash. I can’t have Bush not be the President.

  27. Aaron says:

    My apologies to people who still wanted to talk about Fred Thompson. I didn’t really mean to hijack the thread.

    How ’bout that Law and Order!

  28. David K. says:

    I bet David could point to cases where he’s praised Bush.

    I can, and have, Joe Mama just doesn’t understand the difference between disliking him as a leader because of the choices he’s made vs. hating his choices because i hate Bush. I have demonstrated time and again that my views fall into the former, but alas he lives in a black and white “with us or against us world”, which of course makes him a perfect Bush disciple.

  29. Aaron says:

    David,

    I meant it when I said I wouldn’t get in the middle of an argument between the two of you, but since I defended you a little bit I should say that I think your characterization of Joe Mama is wrong.

    And that is absolutely all I’m going to say on the matter.

  30. David K. says:

    Perhaps, but I think his stances here and elsewhere demonstrate a definite buy in to the “with us or against us” world view, whether that world view is as valid as he or others claim it is i think is more interesting than the fact that he subscribes to it.

  31. Sandy Underpants says:

    Since Bush supporters have run out of facts to defend the atrocities of the Bush Administration they attack the critics as being irrational “Bush Haters”. It’s all they have left, since the VP’s approval ratings fell below 10% and the president’s fell to record lows.

    I’ve recognized 3 distinct groups of people in America today, and you can play this game at home with your friends and family. There are the people who “hated” Bush all along, and people that “hated” Bush after he gave them good reasons. [I am the latter.] The third group is where Joe Mama is– people who live in denial.

    That’s not intended to be a selective insult, it’s an observation of a very large group of people who simply won’t accept or can’t see the truth, and that’s not something to be ashamed of.

  32. Joe Mama says:

    Aaron,

    I appreciate the kind note, but I’ve learned that expecting an accurate characterization of one’s argument (let along a logical response to that characterization) from the likes of David or Sandy Underpants is a fool’s errand.