Fred Thompson?

We place too much emphasis on looks & acting and not enough on qualifications. Fred Thompson might be a great president, but we still have insufficient basis to judge. Thompson is a Republican Obama. It would be ironic if they faced each other in ‘08.

I like Thompson, but I have to ask myself why. It turns out I like his looks and his TV personality. He looks like a president. He sounds like a president. I have criticized Dems for their swooning over Obama. I do not want to be like them. On the other hand, I do not want to dismiss Fred Thompson BECAUSE he looks & sounds like a president. After all, perceptions are important and acting is a big part of being a leader. It always has been.

Washington understood the importance of drama. His performance at the Newburgh conspiracy brought grown men to tears. FDR was a consumate actor, so was Churchill. Kennedy played his role all the time. Reagan was a real professional and Clinton was a chameleon. On the other hand, George Bush (both), Jimmy Carter & Richard Nixon showed their own personalities way too much. What does that tell you?

Thompson is not blank slate. He is not just an actor. He has more political experience than Obama, Clinton or Edwards. He has written many articles outlining his options. I suppose I should read them now.

Fred Thompson can play a president on TV. Maybe he can be one. I think we need to do some more research.

BTW - I am watching the Republican debates. Ron Paul is nuts. To use the old SAT analogy format, Thompson is to Obama as Paul is to Kucinich.

Posted by Jack at September 5, 2007 9:44 PM
Comments
Comment #231902
Thompson is not blank slate. He is not just an actor. He has more political experience than Obama, Clinton or Edwards.

More experience? A one-term senator who didn’t like the “hard work” and quit to go into acting??? Meanwhile, Obama served his time as attorney for a rights group, Clinton was a governor (and Rhodes scholar)…Edwards is also a one-term Senator, but at least he’s been out with the people and runs an institute working on poverty….and Thompson has what to offer??? An image…solely, an image…we don’t need anymore empty-headed presidents…8 years of that will be plenty.

Posted by: Rachel at September 5, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #231904

Rachel

Re Clinton, I meant Hillary. Bill is a FIP (formerly important person). Hillary is the future. It is funny that when I say Clinton, you think only Bill.

Thompson was Senator from 1994-2003, which is more than Obama, Clinton or Edwards.

BTW - Thompson has had a long career. He was minority counsel for the Watergate hearings He was responsible for Sen. Baker asking the question may have led directly to Nixon’s downfall — “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

Posted by: Jack at September 5, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #231908
Thompson has had a long career. He was minority counsel for the Watergate hearings

You specifically said “political” experience…not law experience in the political arena…

Obama’s been in state government, too…

Thompson is just an image…with a trophy wife…

Posted by: Rachel at September 5, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #231910

Rachel

Thompson has more experience in general. He has a few years more in elected office and a lot more in other things. We need to quibble over small details. Neither Obama, nor Thompson, nor Clinton nor Edwards has any significant executive experience. That is what makes the choice difficult.

Among the candidates, Richardson, Romney, Giuliani & Huckabee have experience you might want in president. But we do not elect presidents based on resume alone. That is why Obama, Thompson, Clinton & Edwards can be front runners.

Posted by: Jack at September 5, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #231925

Fred Thompson just might have the what it takes to make a good President. He sure aint one of them DC insiders. And we sure as hell don’t need anyone that’s been in DC in the last 5 years.
The only two things that bother me with him right now is I don’t know much about his political stand on anything. And he’s been in DC in the last 10 years.
Reckon I need to read some of the stuff he’s written too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 6, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #231941
Fred Thompson just might have the what it takes to make a good President. He sure aint one of them DC insiders.

Thompson quite clearly mouthed the Bush line on Leno…talked about Saddam’s nuclear program…come one now, that’s been thoroughly poo-pooed by intelligence that hasn’t been spun. Not an insider? He sure sounds like one…totally brainwashed to spout and follow the Bush/Cheney lies…

Posted by: Rachel at September 6, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #231945

Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, and has been a legislator ever since. By my count, he has slightly more political experience than Thompson.

He sure aint one of them DC insiders.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Thompson is a former lobbyist, which is not only an insider but the worst kind.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 6, 2007 8:27 AM
Comment #231947

Jack, 3 things.
No Im Ronald Reagan, No its me Im Reagan, No Im more Reagan than you. No No No Im More Ron than you, No Im the real Ronald Reagan, And then comes Fred with No Im even Mo’Ron than the rest. Guys President #40 is dead. Thompson is an actor but he not THE actor.

Just because he was in the smokehouse with Wille, doesnt mean he should be considered for President. Afterall he wasnt that good of govenor of Georgia.

But it sure is funny how times change,in the past the politico’s went from office to lobbyist now its lobbyist to Office? How far do we slide?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #231953

Jack,
One of my biggest concerns is that the voting public will be stupid enough to assume the ‘ideals’ held by the character, Fred Thompson, on “Law and Order” are the same ‘ideals’ held by the person Fred Thompson, Presidential candidate.

The television show “Law and Order” leans heavily toward the liberal side, and thus, it makes Thompson appear to be far more Liberal than he actually is.

(don’t forget I’m actually a Demorublican. or Robocrate)

Posted by: Linda H. at September 6, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #231955

If you feel this way I hope you share my total disgust with your party for all the non-sensical focus on whether or not Kerry is French, how important it is to share a beer with the president, $400 haircuts, and all the other non-substantive bs Republicans have thrown at people to distract them from real issues.

Anyway, pretending that Clinton is inexperienced in any way won’t fly. After a certain point, you simply can’t get more experienced.

Posted by: Max at September 6, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #231959

Anyway, pretending that Clinton is inexperienced in any way won’t fly. After a certain point, you simply can’t get more experienced. Posted by: Max at September 6, 2007 10:34 AM

Oh really! Let’s recount her vast experience. Attorney, mother, housewife, bed partner to a president and senator. Name the business or government agency has she managed. Having influence with a sitting and former president is common, not unique. Sorry Max, you’ll have to be more specific with your imaginings.

Posted by: Jim at September 6, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #231964

Jim,

Funny, during the 90’s you guys were claiming that “Hitlery” had Bill’s balls in a vise and was actually running the country.

I know it’s rude to bring up old taking points, but it must be said.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 6, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #231973


It is amazing how much fear and hatred can be instilled in the Republicans by a mere house wife turned Senator.

Fred Thompson: Friend of the little man and Great White Man Hope. That is the way to play this card. Experience is not the way to sell any of the republican candidates this time around. George Bush had military, business and political experience before he became president. Seeing as how all the Republican candidates except Paul are chanting the Neocon mantra at the top of their lungs, I wouldn’t rely to much on good judgement as a selling point either.

Posted by: jlw at September 6, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #231974
Fred Thompson just might have the what it takes to make a good President. He sure aint one of them DC insiders.

Ron, you’re joking right? Fred Thompson is a highly paid Washington lobbyist — the WORST kind of insider.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 6, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #231977

Fred Thompson channels L. Ron Hubbard.
Dianetics, the Tax Plan

Posted by: womanmarine at September 6, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #231982
Funny, during the 90’s you guys were claiming that “Hitlery” had Bill’s balls in a vise and was actually running the country.

And I didn’t like what Clinton (which ever one it was) did then.


A one-term senator who didn’t like the “hard work” and quit to go into acting???

Actually a two term senator who believes in term limits. Wow a politician that actually did what he what he said he would. Each election was won by at least 20 point and he could have easily won a third term.

As for being lazy, well four different successful careers is definently a sign of being lazy.

Posted by: Mutt at September 6, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #231984
As for being lazy, well four different successful careers is definently a sign of being lazy.

More likely a sign of a dilettante…and I wouldn’t consider Thompson’s acting career all that successful…never heard of him until he was on Law and Order…

Posted by: Rachel at September 6, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #231985
Actually a two term senator who believes in term limits.

An undistinguished do-nothing senator who served 10 years; two terms would be 12 years…

Posted by: Rachel at September 6, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #231996

Jack,

We should be wary of the actor turn president; look at the disaster Reagan was as president!!!! He and Nixon where the beginning of the modern day republican crime wave that we enjoy today!!!!!! I hope the voters are not taken in by another scam artist republican actor!!!!! I don’t think we need to continue down the present path to destruction!!!!

We need to give a democrat a chance to turn things around for this country and the world. Republicans have no credibility after Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush. The problem with these republican crime bosses and the new ones on the campaign trail, they only see corporate America. We need some one who will work for all Americans!!!!! This corporate welfare system the republicans have setup will break the countries treasury department!!!!!!!!! This deregulation and trickle down bull $^#@ never works no matter how many times you run the scam it always fails miserably.

I am with you Jack I hope the smoke and mirrors of the actors acting does not fool anyone. The voters need to wake up and look around at where we are headed and decide if this is the future they want for themselves their children and grandchildren!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 6, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #232007

Jack, all I care about is: What is his agenda? What problems does he intend to solve and how? Can I trust his answers?

If he won’t reveal his agenda, he is not my candidate. If he won’t prioritize our nation’s problems and outline solutions, he is not my candidate. If hear his answers but, either they or he don’t sound credible, he is not my candidate. Otherwise, he is my candidate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 6, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #232008

David:

Fred is a big proponent of the fair tax. Check out the link I posted.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 6, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #232009

Jack,

I am watching the Republican debates. Ron Paul is nuts.

Why? Because he’s the only candidate who is even remotely fiscally conservative? Because he is the only candidate who supports the rule of law laid out in the United States Constitution?
Oh I know… It’s because he doesn’t agree with the UNDECLARED wars in Iraq and Afganistan that you love so much!

Posted by: Norton at September 6, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #232013
Jack, all I care about is: What is his agenda? What problems does he intend to solve and how? Can I trust his answers?

Judging by the way he danced around Jay Leno’s question about “the job” in Iraq, I don’t have much trust.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 6, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #232020

If you ask me, someone is “nuts” if they believe things that are plainly untrue. For example, that there are giant purple spiders on the ceiling, or that the surge is working.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 6, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #232022

Jim,

Funny, during the 90’s you guys were claiming that “Hitlery” had Bill’s balls in a vise and was actually running the country. I know it’s rude to bring up old taking points, but it must be said. Posted by: Woody Mena at September 6, 2007 12:51 PM

Woody, that observation by some conservatives occurred when “Hitlery” (your spelling, not mine) was attempting to nationalize health care and was soundly trounced after which she returned to the housewife and mother routine. You know, the cooking and cleaing her closets that she has been recently quoted as saying. I am still waiting for one of the libs to tell me about her executive and business experience. Your silence on this question is deafening.
My choice remains Rudy who is certainly well experienced, tough (how may other DA’s have taken on the Mob) articulate, compassionate, careful with the public purse, consensus builder, etc. If one can run NYC well and get things done with style and substance, represent all people in the city, reduce the tax burden, clean up crime, and “walk on water” that one certainly can qualify to run the country.

Posted by: Jim at September 6, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #232024

It’s already started.

This gets so disgusting.

The Real Rudy

Posted by: womanmarine at September 6, 2007 6:12 PM
Comment #232029

Jim

You really should read what the firefighters have to say about RG before you pledge to go ward healing for him.


Jack

The Dems have a deep bench.To the extent that experience matters they have plenty,especially as compared to the Thompson.As you know some very good presidents have had little experience and some very bad ones had plenty.Truman/Nixon for example. No person alive has enough prior experience to be president.
I fully expected the Reps to look for a Reagan type candidate.His lobbying for an abortion rights group and his BS denial pretty much means he will be another corporate shill. He will say the right things,put on a plaid shirt,roll up the sleeves,rent a pick up to have his photo shoots etc. but under it all he will serve the same masters as Bushco.This will be a CHANGE election. Reagan was wrong a lot but even I would give him points for integrity. You guys could do better.


According to Fox “News”,Paul won the debate.

Posted by: bills at September 6, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #232031

j2t2

Afterall he wasnt that good of govenor of Georgia.

Am I missing something? Fred Thompson Governor of Georgia? When? Maybe he was Governor the 4 years I was sober:)
Thompson is a Tennessee boy. As far as I know he aint lived a day of his life in Georgia.

AP
Goggled Fred Thompson. Your right, he was a DC lobbyist. So he aint worth voting for.
Maybe someone will come along that aint a Beltway Insider.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 6, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #232032

It’s already started. This gets so disgusting. The Real Rudy Posted by: womanmarine at September 6, 2007 06:12 PM

I went to the site you highlighted. Wow, was I impressed by all the unbiased, half-baked opinions…not facts. Good Lord, is this the best Rudy haters can do?

Jim

You really should read what the firefighters have to say about RG before you pledge to go ward healing for him.
Posted by: bills at September 6, 2007 07:18 PM

OH, you mean the UNION leaders. Well, that will cost Rudy about 15 or 20 votes. I am pleased that you didn’t see fit to argue with my list of Rudy virtues. Do you have any similar compaints from NYC police, educators, health workers, tax-payers, cab drivers, street cleaners etc.? I am still waiting to hear from just one of the big Hillary fans to enlighten us about her vast executive and business experience. Many of you have now taken the tack that experience isn’t necessary or even desirable. How silly and self-serving. The resume isn’t important any more for your candidate, just the party affiliation. And you are the same folks arguing for honesty, transparency, and leadership. Hillary and Obama may be excellent senators for their constituency, but leading a nation of diverse interests in a world filled with villans is no job for an amateur.

Posted by: Jim at September 6, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #232033

womanmarine, thank you. Anyone for the UN-Fair National Sales Tax has lost my vote, support, and respect for their thinking skills or robotic follower nature.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 6, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #232040

Why isn’t Thompson using his given name? He was born as “Freddie”…omigosh!

Posted by: Rachel at September 6, 2007 9:13 PM
Comment #232041

Ron, that reference was to the movie Dukes of Hazard. Thompson played the Gov. of Georgia in the movie.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2007 9:19 PM
Comment #232042

Jim
The only people with “fomer President of the United States” on their resumes are not eligible to run.
Personally I am not very impressed with experience in the Senate. A good car mechanic is not necessarily a good truck driver even though both occupations are in the transportation field.Experience as a Governor or even NYC mayor are more germaine.As I mentioned before some of our better presidents did not have a great deal of experience. Truman for one. Lincoln ,as I recall had some congressional experience but was not much of a businessman or an especially good lawyer.

Posted by: BillS at September 6, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #232045
The only people with “fomer President of the United States” on their resumes are not eligible to run.

You need to check the Constitution. Bush 41 and Carter could run.


If one can run NYC well and get things done with style and substance, represent all people in the city, reduce the tax burden, clean up crime, and “walk on water” that one certainly can qualify to run the country.

Represent all the people? You seem to have forgotten the terrible race relations when Rudy was mayor.

Style? I don’t know, it doesn’t take certain kind of guy to shack up with two women in the Mayor’s mansion at the same time.

Clean up crime? Pretty much anyone who was a mayor in the 1990’s can say that.

“Walk on water”? Rudy is the SON OF GOD? I am definitely voting for him!

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 6, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #232085


I saw part of the Republican debate. The most impressive part was at the end when the 29 Republican primary voters that were sequestered by Fox News were asked.

How many of you thought the debate exceeded your expectations—0

How many of you were disappointed—29

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2007 3:31 AM
Comment #232095

Rudy Guiliani, Freddie Thompson, and Mitt Romney would all buy into and expand the Unitary Executive interpretation of the Constitution. So, much for the rule of law and the Constitution if any of these are elected.

Using this theory, Bush announced, while Congress was on vacation, he was authorizing military spy satellites be used for law enforcement to spy on Americans here in the U.S. beginning Oct. 1. These satellites see through clouds, roofs, and even bunkers, with a resolution below 3 feet in diameter, some speculate 1/2 foot.

Do you want to elect Big Brother to replace the little Brother in office now? Not I, say I.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2007 4:53 AM
Comment #232104

David:

I just watched the committee hearing on the satellite program. What’s worse is they are going to offer it’s services to law enforcement agencies.

I was impressed that the committee noted and repeatedly questioned the set-up of basically no oversite outside of homeland security. They were discussing setting up a special court like FISA to oversee it. As it’s set up now it’s “self-policing”. The committe was pissed to have found out about the program in the news.

We’ll see what happens, but they discussed not allowing it to go forward on October 1 until they have all the paperwork about the SOP and guidelines. I hope they do hold it up. There are some serious questions, and the concerns seemed to be pretty much bipartisan, miracle of miracles.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 7, 2007 6:43 AM
Comment #232130


Why would Congress want to stop this program. It is the tool that law enforcement has been waiting on for years. With these satelites, every home in America can be searched without the occupants even being aware of it. With this tool, law enforce will be able to arrest, convict and imprison millions of miscreants who have been eluding their punishment for violating our laws.

Marijuana growing and selling can be eradicated and those caught receive their punishment. Every home can be searched for unregistered guns. Just think of all the good car chase footage we will have to enjoy with our evening meal. There would be so many court cases on TV that we would’t have to watch anything else and never have to watch a rerun unless it was really good and we wanted to.

I know that all the good entertainment wouldn’t last long, eventually everyone would learn that you must be a perfect citizen and that you don’t mess with Sam.

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #232133

All
At least we will have to suffer through fewer stupid attacks on Edwards for being a ,horror of horror, a trial lawyer. Thompson is one also and has voted against damage limits and legal fee caps.

Posted by: BillS at September 7, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #232134


BillS: Thanks for the tip. Rudy

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #232189

Norton

It’s because he doesn’t agree with the UNDECLARED wars in Iraq and Afganistan that you love so much

Actually my daughter and I were wondering about whether there actually was a “Declaration of War” by the Congress. Frankly I don’t remember whether Congress actually voted on war in either country. I know about the “War on Terror” - that’s the same thing as the “War on Drugs” right? HS=Drug czar…

Seriously if someone could point me in the right direction about Iraq and Afghanistan, I would appreciate it.

Mutt

As for being lazy, well four different successful careers is definently a sign of being lazy.

I assume you’re being sarcastic. However if not, I apologize. If so:

By your definition, my ex-husband should run for President. He’s held over 17 ‘successful’ jobs,(and still counting) and he’s only 52. Of course he wasn’t really very good at any of them. That’s why he ‘resigned’ or was asked to resign. Never actually fired! May he rest in peace - oops - getting ahead of myself.

Was Thompson really good at all his jobs? Not as an actor - I never heard of him until ‘Law and Order’, and I think he’s too stuffy there.

Jim,

I am still waiting for one of the libs to tell me about her executive and business experience.

As for H.Clinton, I never thought I’d say this (or anything) in her defense, but how many other wives, girlfriends, lovers,(just to CMA) have we had who have ran for President? (BTW-I suspect she has a staff to clean her closets ;-)snicker, snicker)

Frankly, she’s got the most experience of anyone.
Nearly 12 years as a Senator, 8 years as Pres. Bill’s wife, 8 years as Gov.Bill’s wife, and don’t forget the Whitewater Scandal - she was involved with that as well.
Experience may not be everything, but in this case, she’s got the most.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 7, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #232192

About Fred Thompson:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3572967

Anyone read The Brethren, by John Grisham lately?

Posted by: Linda H. at September 7, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #232316

Linda H
The Whitewater Scandal? There was no scandal,remember? We spent millions to find out it was just a crappy land deal the Clintons lost money on.That was why Starr had to spend the rest of his tenure sniffing underwear.

Posted by: BillS at September 8, 2007 10:10 PM
Comment #232322

Bills,
That was my point.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 8, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #232347

womanmarine, the real question is whether the Bush Administration will proceed anyway under the Unitary Executive theory of omnipotent power over all government. If so, America has a Constitutional, Civil Liberties, and PR crisis on its hands along with a runaway Authoritarian at the helm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2007 6:40 AM
Comment #232348

jlw said: “Marijuana growing and selling can be eradicated and those caught receive their punishment.”

It’s not that easy. They can determine where growers are, but, they can’t use the Satellite Intel to indict or get a search warrant. They must find or invent other grounds for that, which will hold up in court. But, therein, lies the true threat of the program. Especially if the technology is not 100% accurate. Here’s the scenario. They detect pot growing with the satellite. They have to have other grounds for a search warrant. They tail the homeowner to determine associates and find one with outstanding tickets or a warrant for child payment arrears. They cut a deal, you tell us where a grower is, and we overlook your warrant or payment arrears. The associate tells them the name of the homeowner. They obtain a search warrant on that witness’ statement. They enter the home and find it is the bathroom heat lamp that is on all the time because of a faulty switch. Now they have to cover their butt, so they plant evidence at the scene. Innocent person is indicted, convicted, and sent to jail forcing a murderer out on early release due to lack of room.

J. Edgar Hoover surveiled ILLEGALLY Coretta Scott King. So, let’s not be naive about the lengths the feds will go to cover their asses and bypass the law to get what they want.

Their used to be a maxim in this country before the 1960’s that went like this: “It is better to set 5 guilty persons free than to incarcerate one innocent citizen.” One never hears that anymore in today’s legal environment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2007 6:52 AM
Comment #232356


David R: If the attitude that people who have something to hide or are violating a law are the only ones who have something to worry about becomes the prevalent attitude, the law will follow and the technology will play a greater role as evidence.

Unless I am mistaken, the current law does not apply to marijuana growing in a persons yard, in a farm field or a small clearing in the woods. Marijuana shines like a lighted Christmas tree in the infrared spectrum both day and night, grow lights on or off. The use of aircraft for infrared detection is costly, time consuming and not very effective because of the enormous area that has to be searched. It is most effective when law enforcement has other information which leads them to search a particular location. If the infrared capabilities incorporated into the spy satellites is nearly as good as that used by aircraft, huge areas of land can be searched faster and more effectively.

Posted by: jlw at September 9, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #232378

jlw, and if this satellite spying is allowed, it automatically allows future enhancements and advances in satellite surveillance technology, as well, all top secret. In reality then, the Executive will have the power to surveil secretly without oversight, accountability, or checks all in the name of national security secrecy. It is Orwell’s “1984” arriving late.

The election and reelection of GW Bush proves that our electoral system is no safeguard against an executive who will use power to subvert the will of the people and the Constitution designed to protect and defend the American people from aggressors both foreign, and domestic including those within the halls of government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #232380


David R. Construction workers vs. CIA spy satellite.


ORBITAL DECAY by Allen Steele

Posted by: jlw at September 9, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #232454

For those that care, Fred Thompson got his acting career started by playing himself. He represented a parole board official that refused to release criminals who had paid the lame duck Tennessee governor for pardons. In 1977, Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti, a former Tennessee Parole Board chair.

Ragghianti had refused to release felons who had bribed aides to Democratic Governor Ray Blanton in order to obtain clemency.[25] With Thompson’s assistance, Ragghianti filed a wrongful termination suit against Blanton’s office. Thompson helped to expose the cash-for-clemency scheme that eventually led to Blanton’s removal from the Governor’s office.[19] In July 1978, a jury awarded Ragghianti $38,000 in back pay, and ordered her reinstatement.[25] Ragghianti’s case would garner national attention, leading to the publication of a book titled, Marie, and a film of the same name….The 1977 corruption case against Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton later became the subject of a 1983 book, Marie, by Peter Maas. Director Roger Donaldson bought the film rights and traveled to Nashville to speak with the people involved with the original case. After meeting with Thompson, Donaldson asked Thompson if he wanted to play himself in the movie; Thompson agreed. The resulting film, Marie, was released in 1985.

His career and experience is fairly similar to Hillary Clinton’s. Began with experience in the Watergate trials, moved into private law practice along with a substantial role in politics at the State and Federal levels. His acting and lobbying were a side-line to his law career and political careers.

I would recommend that he be considered on his political positions and career rather than his acting one, but I guess that most people will probably not do that (both opponents and supporters). I personally have not made up my mind on him, but I’m leaning toward not supporting him based on his plan for Iraq and his pro-life stance.

Posted by: Rob at September 10, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #232611

Fred Thompson….Lobbyist….need we say more?

I’m originally from Tennessee and lived their through his stint in the senate. I was thoroughly not impressed. He flipped-flopped his positions to get elected and did, indeed, roll up his flannel sleeves, rent a truck, sit on a wooden fence and “acted” his way to the hearts of many Tennesseans.

During his latter years he was simply a mouthpiece for the republican majority…no ideas of his own. He got in line and supported philosophies he had been against earlier in his carreer.

Posted by: Tom L at September 11, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #232661
  • [1] Fred Thompson is a member of OOPs (Other Occupationist Proponents); determined to continue to occupy Iraq indefinitely. After all, it’s making us safer.
  • [2] Fred Thompson supports the FairTax.org (30% National Sales Tax).
    • REGRESSIVE TAX: effective income tax rate increases as income decreases
    • PROGRESSIVE TAX: effective income tax rate increases as income increases
    • NUETRAL TAX: effective income tax rate is constant regardless of income
    • CURRENT TAX SYSTEM: a severely abused and perverted mess of tax loop holes and unnecessary complexity; a messy combination of a Progressive tax system and a myriad of tax loop holes that lets Warren Buffet (2nd wealthiest person in the country) to pay a lower effective income tax rate than a secretary making $60K annually; thus, the current tax system it is essentially a REGRESSIVE tax system.
  • [3] Fred Thompson voted:
    • Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
    • Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
    • Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
    • Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
    • Says the Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007)
    • Opposed Term Limits (May 2007)
    • Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
    • Americans better served than nationalized Canadian healthcare system. (Jun 2007)
    • Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
    • Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
    • Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
    • Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
    • Europe mothballs its fleet, when all should build military. (Apr 2007)
    • Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
    • Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998) Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
    • Taxes burden production; keep rates as low as possible. (May 2007) … yet …
    • Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001) {Now we have a REGRESSIVE tax system}
    • All wars are full of mistakes; trust General Petraeus. (Jun 2007) {I do. Petraeus is doing his job, and he said that he did not know if the occupation of Iraq was making us safer here}
    • Voting for the war then against funding is just poll-based. (Jun 2007) {after 4.5 years? After 10 years? After 20 years?}
    • Supports pre-emptive attack on Iran if close to nuclear weapon. (Jun 2007) {pre-emptive? Why can only the U.S., North Korea, Israel, China, Pakistan, Russia, England, France, etc. have nuclear weapons? Why do I get the feeling Iran will make Iraq look like a walk through the park? Why do we wait until Iran does something wrong? After all, if we need to, we can turn Iran into a wasteland.}
    • President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007)
    • Iraq is a war between civilization and evil. (Jun 2007)
    • If we had not gone to Iraq, Saddam would be developing nukes. (Jun 2007)
    • I would do essentially what the president’s doing in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
    • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

And Fred Thompson is a lobbyist too.
Government is FOR-SALE.

he was simply a mouthpiece for the republican majority…no ideas of his own
I agree. He’s too far right and appears to be itchin’ for an excuse to attack Iran. After witnessing Iraq, no WMD, and Bush’s stubborness to occupy Iraq indefinitely, I don’t think the President should be able to go to war without the Congress first declaring war.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at September 12, 2007 7:54 PM
    Comment #270240

    I am sad to say it, but Rachel bringing up trophy wife…that is all President Elect Obama is to the Democratic Party….a trophy president with a trophy family. Someone they can tell what to do and Pelosi has already started. He will only walk the walk and talk the talk if/when his handlers let him. Barrack Obama will not be his own man in the white house because he is owned.
    slr456

    Posted by: Slr456 at November 13, 2008 12:14 AM
    Post a comment