Incredible Buzz Over Fred Thompson

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Utah ‘Fredheads’ gather for SLC rally

A handful of Utah “Fredheads” - political activists supporting the late entry of Republican Fred Thompson into the presidential sweepstakes - gathered Thursday in Salt Lake City to kick off their campaign for the oldest fresh face in the race.
Just four Thompson supporters showed up at Utah Republican Party headquarters for the event, leaving dozens of untouched cookies and vegetable snacks provided in hopes a much bigger crowd would materialize.

Thompson’s First Campaign Event: Unimpressive

I just attended Fred Thompson’s first campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa. The quick take: This is a whimper of a start.

I’m writing from the filing center that the Thompson campaign has set up in the Polk County Convention Complex, and the verdict from the grizzled and cynical Des Moines press corps is harsh: “Pathetic” was the word used by one vet. “Small” and “low energy” were the words used to describe the crowd.

It’s hard to disagree with that general take. The campaign – as campaigns do – deliberately chose a small room to amplify the size of the crowd. But even the small room was a good deal less than full. A couple volunteers (I assume) tried to start up a chant of “Go, Fred, Go!” during the speech. It ended pretty quickly.

One woman fainted, but it probably wasn’t from heat (the room was nicely air conditioned) and it definitely wasn’t excitement.
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/09/thompsons-first-campaign-event.html[/quote]

I have a feeling that Utah leans toward Mitt Romney…

22

[quote]kroby wrote:
I don’t know why Brad61 expects us to be falling over ourselves, just because some man enters the race for the Presidency.[/quote]

Because a few months ago, the conservatives on the forum were eagerly anticipating a Fred Thompson candidacy. A bunch of guys were saying that Fred would be their candndiate. (Where were you, the Soy Forum?)

Now that Fred is officially a candidate… nothing. Haven’t seen any Fred threads.

Yeah, good luck with that. Fred was asked what he would do if he was elected. He said “Lots of things”.

Well, can you give some example?

“I really don’t want to get into specifics”

23

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
“I really don’t want to get into specifics”
[/quote]

If he’s elected, I really hope they’ll punctuate everyone of his public speeches with the Law & Order “doing doing” intro sound.

“My fellow Americans, today I have signed into law an important bill for America’s future…”

DOING DOING

“This new law will… blah blah blah…”

DOING DOING

That’d be awesome.

24

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
kroby wrote:
I don’t know why Brad61 expects us to be falling over ourselves, just because some man enters the race for the Presidency.

Because a few months ago, the conservatives on the forum were eagerly anticipating a Fred Thompson candidacy. A bunch of guys were saying that Fred would be their candndiate. (Where were you, the Soy Forum?)

[/quote]

Unlike you, I don’t entertain speculation.

And I didn’t even know there was a soy forum. Fancy you’d know about that!

DOING DOING

Thanks, pookie, for the sound effects!

25

The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

26

Thompson has little experience but little baggage. I think I would prefer someone a little more accomplished in the political arena but his lack of experience can be spun into NOT being a Washington inider.

If Obama and Edwards (and Clinton for that matter) can be considered serious candidates I am not sure why Thompson wouldn’t be as far as experience goes. They all fall well short of most of the rest of the republican candidates.

Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

DOING DOING

27

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

[/quote]
Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf

Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!

Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.
[/quote]
Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

[quote]
DOING DOING [/quote]

29

[quote]100meters wrote:

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.
[/quote]

No way. Kerry was waaaay better looking than Bush. Shit was this a test?

30

Thompson started dropping hints he would run for president, six months ago. So he’s had plenty of time to work up some policy positions.

I just wonder if there is any real substance there, or is he just an actor playing at politics. What makes him different or better than the rest of the GOP field… There’s not much to go on, at his website.

31

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

DOING DOING

[/quote]

Weakest field I can remember. All very inexperienced.

32

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf

Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!

Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?

[/quote]

In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.

I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.

Back on the short bus 100.

33

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

DOING DOING

[/quote]

Obama and Edwards are clowns. No experience and weak on all issues. Hillary has so much baggage she cannot be elected. The majority will never vote for her. I know you are paid to defend the Democrats but seriously.

Any one of those weak sisters will get slain head to head against Thompson. The Dems know that. It’s a nightmare scenario. Talk to someone who doesn’t belong to Moveon and you will see. (Actually you won’t becasue you are blinded by your pre-conceieved notions)

34

I am cautiously optimistic about Thompson.

I really do hope he is as lazy as they say.

I like lazy politicians. I will pay for them all day long.

It’s like protection money.

35

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf

Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!

Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?

In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.

I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.

Back on the short bus 100.

[/quote]

Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?

36

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

DOING DOING

Obama and Edwards are clowns. No experience and weak on all issues. Hillary has so much baggage she cannot be elected. The majority will never vote for her. I know you are paid to defend the Democrats but seriously.

Any one of those weak sisters will get slain head to head against Thompson. The Dems know that. It’s a nightmare scenario. Talk to someone who doesn’t belong to Moveon and you will see. (Actually you won’t becasue you are blinded by your pre-conceieved notions)

[/quote]

Santorum still surging too!

37

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

DOING DOING

Obama and Edwards are clowns. No experience and weak on all issues. Hillary has so much baggage she cannot be elected. The majority will never vote for her. I know you are paid to defend the Democrats but seriously.

Any one of those weak sisters will get slain head to head against Thompson. The Dems know that. It’s a nightmare scenario. Talk to someone who doesn’t belong to Moveon and you will see. (Actually you won’t becasue you are blinded by your pre-conceieved notions)

Santorum still surging too!

[/quote]

Yes Casey was great for Pennsylvania. Has he actually done anything of merit yet?

You know your record on elections is about 1 and 99. Sure you want to hang your hat on that. In fact you backing Hillary is as close to the kiss of death as you can get.

38

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf

Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!

Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?

In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.

I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.

Back on the short bus 100.

Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?
[/quote]

Yes we all want higher taxes, bigger govenment, a weaker military, more control to the UN, more welfare, less religion, more illegal immigrants, the surrender caucus etc. etc.

Remember Dems get elected by hiding what they stand for. You don’t hold a single view not supported by the Democrats. Big difference and wishing doesn’t make it so. Liberals make up 20% of voters nationswide. A minority, not the mainstream. COnservatives are at 40% that’s enough to win elections since moderates tend to agree with conservatives and not radical liberal policy.

You wouldn’t know what the mainstream is if you were drowning in it. And I was educated in a traditional manner not with the new math the liberal, anti-voucher, educators are so fond of. 2+2 still equals 4 even if that offends someone somewhere. Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps in your math class everyone voted on what they think 2+2 should equal so everyone feels included.

39

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.

Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.

The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.

And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.

Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf

Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!

Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?

In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.

I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.

Back on the short bus 100.

Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?

Yes we all want higher taxes, bigger govenment, a weaker military, more control to the UN, more welfare, less religion, more illegal immigrants, the surrender caucus etc. etc.

Remember Dems get elected by hiding what they stand for. You don’t hold a single view not supported by the Democrats. Big difference and wishing doesn’t make it so. Liberals make up 20% of voters nationswide. A minority, not the mainstream. COnservatives are at 40% that’s enough to win elections since moderates tend to agree with conservatives and not radical liberal policy.

You wouldn’t know what the mainstream is if you were drowning in it. And I was educated in a traditional manner not with the new math the liberal, anti-voucher, educators are so fond of. 2+2 still equals 4 even if that offends someone somewhere. Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps in your math class everyone voted on what they think 2+2 should equal so everyone feels included.

[/quote]
Yet, still IN THE REAL WORLD the majority support the exact same things I do. (You kind of threw in some strawmen deliberately for some reason (actual issuses wouldn’t make your case?)–and obviously Republicans are for bigger government)

Seriously, you are the fringe.

stem cell
minimum wage
universal health care
disapproving of Bush’s performance
wanting to get out of Iraq
etc…
I am step for step with the mainstream (you do understand mainstream=majority right?)

40

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.

Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.

Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.

dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.

DOING DOING

Obama and Edwards are clowns. No experience and weak on all issues. Hillary has so much baggage she cannot be elected. The majority will never vote for her. I know you are paid to defend the Democrats but seriously.

Any one of those weak sisters will get slain head to head against Thompson. The Dems know that. It’s a nightmare scenario. Talk to someone who doesn’t belong to Moveon and you will see. (Actually you won’t becasue you are blinded by your pre-conceieved notions)

Santorum still surging too!

Yes Casey was great for Pennsylvania. Has he actually done anything of merit yet?

You know your record on elections is about 1 and 99. Sure you want to hang your hat on that. In fact you backing Hillary is as close to the kiss of death as you can get.

[/quote]
1 and 99 based on?
Backed Hillary when?
This stuff as usual coming out of thin air?
Is it really this hard for you to just say something factual?