Thompson is appealing in a number of ways, but talk of slam dunk victories is more than a littel premature. Not long ago Rudy was riding a wave of invincibility. Then there's talk of Thompson, as it's "who's Rudy?" The race is very long, and every candidate has short comings. Thompson might enter and might win. But it will still be the usual dog fight in the election, which will still be decided by 3 percenntage points or less.

As Thompson also represents so much of what the LEFT abhors and fears, he might galvanize the opposition. Just a thought.

Here's where my cultural ineptness comes in. I never heard of Fred Thompson until a few weeks ago. I like him already if he's the second coming of Reagan, but where's the fire in the belly? If this guy was happy to be an actor after being a politician, where's the comparison with Reagan?
===========================

Thompson/Giuliani?

or

Giuliani/Thompson?

Gonna need alot more than "movie star quality"! Is he an actor or a politician? Or an actor playing politician? Heres a hint fred....the only chance you even have is to be anti war. Or you can go the mccain route and be extremely pro war, act like dubya lite and watch your chances of even winning the primary go up in smoke.

I think the emergence of Thompson as a darling candidate speaks more about the Republicans' lack of confidence in the electability of the current stable of candidates than it does about his speciific qualifications for the job. Growing disillusionment with Guliani's consistency on social issues and uneasiness with Mcain continuing to pee in his own pool makes either unlikely to be able to withstand the next year and a half of scrutiny and still emerge as electable. Romney has appeal but is an unknown to most of the country and seems to be reluctant to put forth actual policy proposals and is already deflecting criticism that he is a flip-flopper. Thompson represents a fresh start. Also, I guarantee the democrats are already looking for "their" Fred Thompson for similar reasons.

Well, Rob, their Fred is Obama, and look at that in a head to head.

Jeff, anti-war is so Twentieth Century.
====================================

I mean, j, I could say you brought it on yourselves, but I'll not send to know for whom the bell tolls.
=======================

I don't think war is the answer, except when there is no question of it.
=======================================

But what about Mitt Romney? He certainly "looks" and "acts" the part of a President -- has much good experience and has more hair than Thompson (who looks a bit old). Not that I din't like Thompson; quite the contrary. I was just wondering about a comparison -- could there ever be a Thompson/Romney or Romney/Thompson ticket?

Thompson would likely sell. He is a good actor, and that is what's needed to sell. We don't really know that much about him yet (that is, in today's politics- and I do mean today).

There might be some loss of support once his positions become more widely known.

Put another way, if the country were to elect a Hillary Clinton (or a Barak O) over a Romney/Thompson or Thompson/Romney -- which seems hard to imagine -- wouldn't that mean this nation is heading down the tubes without much optomistic future.

Kim
"I mean, j, I could say you brought it on yourselves, but I'll not send to know for whom the bell tolls."

I brought what on myself? Please elaborate.

Pacifism elicits aggression, except within a pack.
==================

Ted, I thought of posting Thompson/Romney as a sort of corollary to Bush/Cheney's CEO/COO, but Thompson hasn't CEO skills. He has some of Reagan's skills but not his intellect or fire.

But, what do I know? These were all strangers to me, until very recently.
==============================

Neocon Alert!

If you think the perpetual war program is groovy, if just a bit messy around the edges, vote Thompson.

If you're for the manufacturing base of the US being transferred overseas in the name of Global Economy, with the benefit of goods being pennies cheaper, vote Thompson.

If you think Libby is one of the finest people you've ever likely to meet and should be pardoned for whatever reason sticks, vote Thompson.

If you appreciate the resident goober at Neocon Central (AEI) acting like he's not being controlled by the New York money boys, vote Thompson.

This has been a Neocon Alert.

byranD,

What's your solution to all those problems you list?

Vote Hillary?
Vote Obama?
Vote AlGore?
Vote BreckBoy?

Yeah, right. Those folks will take care of all your needs. No need to work or be responsible ever again. Just sit back, take it easy, use your Food Stamp ATM card and let the productive responsible people pay your way with their tax dollars.

"and, second, like Reagan, he has great presence and movie star quality."

What a pathetic reason to vote for someone.

BillyBob,

I'd vote Paul, Tancredo, or maybe Hunter.

Basically, any America First-er.

If it came down to G, R, or McC vs. the people you mentioned, I'll leave that field blank.

"and, second, like Reagan, he has great presence and movie star quality."

What a pathetic reason to vote for someone.

...and yet, most of the complaints about our current President hinge on how bad he is at public speaking. Even the comments about the war (or pretty much anything else) come back to his bad speaking skills.

Then there's that whole Obama thing, based on, well, his movie-star qualities (it's certainly not based on anything he's actually done while in his current job).

Hell, look at Bill Clinton. Most of the people who love him start off with blathering about his wonderful personal magnetism (AKA "movie star quality").

One of the "promises" that the Dems made was that they would deal with the so-called "Culture of Corruption"...They talked the talk, but all they've done is continually remind us that they are the leading participants in that culture. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has walked the walk, with a track record in dealing with gov't corruption that cannot be beat.

"And 2nd, like Reagan He has great presence and movie star quality."

jp2 "what a pathetic reason to vote for someone."

As I recall those are the same things all the libs went cuckoo for coaco puffs over Billary about!

In the video he refers to this nation as a "democracy". Not a conservative term, especially in reference to avenging an attack. Rather Trotksyish, in fact (see Neocon Alert above).
Then, with hand still in pocket, he stands at the pulpit, and blubbers. Well, not a full blubber; by time Dan Rather's blubber was received in Tennessee, it was more of a red-faced sniffle.

Jeff, anti-war = pro-surrender.

We were "for Thompson" before being for Thompson was cool.

www draftfredthompson com has 4,700 volunteers that are gathering past records, current news, video, audio and more. Why perform searches that have already been done and are all in one place

Thompson is a true red (not blue) conservative (check his record).

Not a RINO, not a CINO. He's the real thing.

Was New Coke the Real Thing?
===================

New Coke?

Liberals can't begin to guess as they do not utilize logic.
Would you like to test your ability? Who said, "After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and the sincerity of Hollywood."?

Who said it and what did they mean by it?

The "great presence" and "star quality" comment has been denigrated here. Fair enough --- those things are not sufficient. But they ARE essential as qualities for a POTUS in today's media saturated world. There are many other things you can learn and master, many areas of knowledge and expertise you can assimilate. But if you don't have the commmanding presence, and if you don't know how to project your thoughts and (to at least a significant extent) inspire people with a vision that you can articulate, then I think you should sit on the bench rather than run.

I don't know if I'd vote for Thompson, but to reject him out of hand because he DOES have that presence and those qualities is petty and very short-sighted, in my opinion. The man has been a Senator, for 8 years ... and that's as long as Hillary will have been one in January '09, and twice as long as Obama in '09. Personally, I don't think being a legislator is much of a credential for a presidential candidate, ESPECIALLY if one makes a whole career of it. But it doesn't hurt to have been there for a while, and I think eight years is just about the right amount of time.

The thing that Thompson will have to overcome in order to get my vote is that I don't see much of a history of "running something big and important." Some friends disagree with me about that being critical, but I have been around business executives most of my life and I sure can tell the difference between those who are learning that skill set on the job (or failing to learn it) versus those to whom it has become second nature. And the executive branch is one helluva big beast to run, even if you ARE smart enough to surround yourself with able lieutenants who share your philosophies and buy into your governance style.

My ideal candidate probably does not exist, at least not in the current field of leaders, although Hagel has been in several key executive leadership roles and is a straight talker --- two things I value a lot).

I hope Fred is a viable candidate. We need all the good ones we can find --- and how.

Hagel!? Chuck Hagel?

The same guy who said,"the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Yet on the other side of his face he has agreed to the troop "surge", no time-table for troop withdrawal and everything else of the presidents plans yet he provides no options for us to take in order to win. Ohh yea baby, that's a leader we can very much do without.

A real LEADER would offer to modify the ROE's that are killing our soldiers; rally support to bring in as many troops as we can possibly send to knock on every door at the same time and eliminate the insurgency in very short order...

A real man doesn't whine about what is, he offers options that will work. A leader knows and accepts this and operates from that foundation inherently.

Chuck demonstrates none of the above.

Chris,
Let's see: Hagel: Vietnam vet, speaks his mind, tells W to fly a kite, one of the most conservative members of the Senate...

vs. Thompson: an ex-senator, lawyer and a lobbyist for foreign governments and S&Ls, who when in Congress, quickly succumbed to the CFR siren call. Now he's on the board of the Libby Legal Defense Fund to keep Marc Rich's friend and ex-lawyer out of prison.

Too many puppeteers and mafia friends in Tennessee Tuxedo's gunny sack. Likes to be "popular". Even reviewed "300" to garner the Log Cabin Republican vote. Might appoint Giuliani as First Lady.

Whoaaa, you like to speak your mind without dealing in reality also. Also, long on rhetoric but extremely short on facts Bryan.

Your spin takes part of the truth and tweaks it just enough to meet your needs...which is worse than bald-faced lies.

I'm waiting for someone like Alec Baldwin to publish a rant about how Thomson is "just a Movie Star": cognitive dissonance at its refined, sweetest, purest form.

$5 says that someone in Hollywood will complain about Thompson in a blog post (HuffPo, Kos, Firedoglake, etc.) within a week of a formal Fred candidacy, if not before.

Any takers?

p.s. Fred has my vote, if nothing else, because at least he's sincere. Experience? Almost half the country voted in 2004 for a candidate that had no experience in his adult life running anything except his mouth. What experience did/does Kerry have as a legislator? What legislation did he sponsor? Other than a brief stint at military duty, the only real experience JFKerry had in his adult life was in running the sham Winter Soldier anti-Vietnam movement back in the early 1970's. So if you are going to complain about Thompson's supposed lack of experience, I hope you didn't vote for Kerry in 2004; otherwise, your complaint rings rather hollow...

I had to google to find out that Fred Thompson prefers the sincerity and reality of Hollywood to that of DC, but I have no idea what he meant; I never heard of this guy until a month ago.
======================================

Sonny Bono thought the actors in Washington were far better than the actors in Hollywood.
========================

Senator Thompson: Please run in 2008. Please please please run in 2008!

Exactly my point Kim.

Although, I think Fred said it with much more finesse.

Get to know the man by his record, votes, speeches and concerns before you think of making fun of people for believing there might be hope for us yet.

Go to YouTube for videos and Paul Harvey for the shows Fred has done for him recently. Check him out for yourself.

Yes, Chris, I do need to get to know more about this guy. Right now, I could not pick him out of a lineup. As are many telling jokes, my New Coke one was a cheap shot, particularly from one who hasn't tasted it.

By the way, we drank RC during the hiatus. Whew. The good ol' days.
==============================

Will Rogers has been massively misrepresented; what he really said was: "Among the elite of business and politics, I never met a man I didn't like".
========================

That was very genuine of you Kim ;- )

Just click the link on my name when you have a few minutes where you'll find more information than you can possibly comsume in a full day.

Thanks, Chris, always try to be. Your man Fred is good enough for Clarice Feldman and that's probably good enough for me. I like Romney; he's the best combination of ability and likability out there. His Mormonism is a problem until you recognize his brand of theocracy aint' the same as the snake handlers'.

It's a horse race; they ain't all out of the gate, yet.

I bet on the gray mare; I bet on the bay.
I hope that's a corn snake,
Right there in the hay.
======================

Kim,

We have quite abit of information on Romney also...Drop by ;- )

Me, too. I'm moving from Rudy to Fred if Fred gets in.

He'd rack up the South again, and a bunch of indepedents.

Hunter/Thompson. It has a ring even a moonbat would be attracted to.

All us drugged-out gun-nut moonbats out here. Well, maybe if it was two other guys named Hunter & Thompson. Fred and Duncan are against legalizing drugs, right?

Now you're gonna make me actually go look, aren't you? Surely there is a libertarian streak in one or the other, or a pragmatic one.
====================================