Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Facts On Thompson

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams

Well, it seems that many Conservatives are salivating over the prospect that former Senator Fred Thompson (R) Tennessee, will be announcing his candidacy for President in the very near future. Some speculate it may be as early as the fourth of July.



My fear is that too many Conservatives are thinking Senator Thompson is another Reagan. I fear this may be wishful thinking. There is no guarantee, at least, not before thoroughly checking Thompson's voting record, that he is indeed another Reagan. Besides the fact that both Reagan and Thompson are actors, I am not so sure the similarities don't end there. Why? Because I know little about Thompson.

I remember I had the same reservations about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President. An actor? What does an actor know about running a country? This ain't a movie, Ronald.

There is one huge difference between the two actors. Thompson was a Senator before he was an actor.

So, this is what I did:

I went to a website called, "On the Issues" and I read there how Senator Fred Dalton Thompson voted on various issues when he was in the U.S. Senate. The website has determined Fred Thompson to be a "Moderate Populist Conservative" candidate.

What is that, you ask? It means, in a nutshell, that he has appeal to both Liberal and Conservatives, in different areas. Perhaps that is the kind of President America is looking for.

Check it out. See what you think. Do you agree with him? On how many issues?

So now, I'm impressed. He and I agree on so many issues, it's hard not to support him. I think I still prefer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) California, but he is still not getting enough media attention. He needs recognition to expect to be taken seriously in the 2008 election.

Fred Thompson has the media attention and the popularity to win the nomination and the election. Add Duncan Hunter to the ticket as Vice President and we have what I consider a winning Conservative combination.

NOTE: Those of you who have been reading and appreciating Marshall Arts comments on this blog, as well as others, and are as impressed as I am with his intelligent, lucid, and well thought out opinions, will no doubt be happy to know (as I am) that Art has finally created his own blog. I have added it to my blogroll. Please be sure to visit and offer any comments you have. (Psst! Like Dan Trabue, he thrives on disagreement).

29 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Thanks for the plug, Mark. I truly appreciate it.

Actually, I don't like disagreement, I prefer total and unwavering agreement, but what the heck.

As for Thompson, I like hearing him talk. I wish the link provided a bit more fleshing out of the votes of his, or at least another way to find out such. Guess I'll have to dig myself, or wait for another link. Let's see....dig, wait, dig, wait, dig, wait.....tough call.

Erudite Redneck said...

I don't see where you see any appeal he has for liberals. He looks pretty solidly moder-conservative to me. Moderastely conservastive is still conservative.

Myself: Your political philosophy is Libertarian-Leaning Liberal. That sounds about right.

Trader Rick said...

Welcome to the Thompson Bandwagon!

Dan Trabue said...

"Thrive on disagreement?"

You're wrong, of course.

As to Fred Thompson, thanks for the link. It's important to know what folk stand for.

And he's another one of these politicians where I have difficulty finding anything we would agree upon.

Timothy said...

Hi Mark,
Thanks for the work on Thompson. I'm leaning that way just because there are not many in the race that really get my hopes up for a real conservative to run. Therefore, he looks good for now.

I did find an article that said some Church of Christ pastor challenged Thompson's Christianity... but then again, that brand of Church of Christ challenges everyone's Christianity that don't get baptized in their church alone.

Blessings and good post...

Abouna said...

Mark: At the moment, I find Thompson much more appealing then Rudy. Knowing Rudy's stand on abortion, same-sex marriages, and knowing how his law firm is involved in the "North American" Union and the building of the Super highway, which is to run from the Mexican border, clear through the center of the United States to the Canadian border,I cannot put my support behind him.

Now a Thompson/Hunter ticket sounds like just what the doctor ordered.

mudkitty said...

Not one position sited. Not one.

You all are guilty of man-crushes.

Mark said...

Mudkitty, everyone else followed the link and found how Thompson stands on ALL the issues. Why didn't you? You are guilty of being ignorant.

Erudite Redneck said...

Uh, Tim. It was James Dobson who questioned Thompson's Christianity, then backtracked.

Mark said...

HA! Dan! You proved you like to argue when you said I am wrong! I think you and Art both are energized by disageeeents. I mean that in a good Christian way of course.

mudkitty said...

My god, if you guys had actually followed the link, you'd see that Thompson is all over the place in terms of his nearly decade old voting record. But you guys will tell yourselves what you want to hear, if you don't here it.

As for today's issues, the ones that confront us, he won't be pinned down. And he doesn't want to criminalize abortion.

But I'll grant him one thing, he's got the "folksy" thing down pat.

Henry said...

"You all are guilty of man-crushes."

Typical moonbat hypocrite: Using a gay reference as an insult.

Ahh, lefty "tolerance" at it's finest.

Timothy said...

ER,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56112
It was a church of christ political science professor...

Marshall Art said...

Thompson all over the place? Put down the catnip and explain.

mudkitty said...

Man-crush is distinctly NOT a gay reference, just so some of you slow types know. It's a balls-out, Capitol R, Republican reference. It specifically refers to straight men.

Embrace your man-crushes, straight men. You know you want to.

Jason H. Bowden said...

mudkitty--

I think I get your drift. Republicans respect manly men, while Democrats prefer girlie-men.

Thompson's advocacy of federalism is admirable. In addition, Thompson brings the toughness of Giuliani, the straight-talking of McCain, and the innovative spirit of Romney without the respective baggage of each candidate.

Henry said...

"Man-crush is distinctly NOT a gay reference"

Sure, if you say so, fag basher.

Typical lefty attempt at back spinning out of the usual hypocrisy.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Fred Thompson causes leftist operaters to shiver in their skin. He has proven through YouTube...and through his popularity without having even entered the race, that he is quite media-savvy. That makes him viable.

I'm not convinced he is the conservative I prefer, but when he does get into the real fray, I 'll be able to make my decision.

If George Bush had the media-awareness of Fred Thompson, America would not be in the sad political state it is in currently.

mudkitty said...

It ain't respect, Jason.

And Henry - stop projecting your fear and loathing unto me. The mere reference to gays do not automatically make for a pejorative, except in your gutter mind. Me thinks you doth protest to much, anyway.

mudkitty said...

And btw Henry - the word "fag" is the n-word as gays go, so look in the mirror when you use the term along with the term "basher."

Jason H. Bowden said...

mudmitty--

Well, Republicans do want members of the male sex to act like gentlemen. But I stand corrected. You are just using homosexuality as a slur like many conservative hardliners do, and this now seems transparent to everyone, whether they approve of the behavior or not.

Erudite Redneck said...

I'm honored that you deign to address me directly, Tim.

OK. A Church of Christ minister called Thompson out.

But, from the very story you linked: "First, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson was reported to have said the Republican presidential hopeful is not a real Christian."

So, LOL, we're both right.

mudkitty said...

Jason, you're wrong again. I think homosexuality is just fine. How 'bout you?

Jason H. Bowden said...

mudkitty--

Since you are not implying that Republicans value manliness, you are implying that Republicans are gay. When you act morally superior and use this kind of innuendo, that makes you a hypocrite.

I view homosexuality as something to be frowned upon like gluttony, divorce, gambling, or drug abuse. In itself it doesn't make you a bad person, and I don't believe in criminalizing it, but all things being equal one ought to avoid it.

mudkitty said...

Only someone who places a negative value on homosexuality, as you do, would object to a republican homosexual reference. As for "manliness" that is something republicans are soooo gay about, and they don't even realize it. Republican man-crushes - they are so cute. Define manliness, macho men.

The thing is, the remaining vestiges of homo-antipathy comes from a lot of latent homo repression. Relax, repugs.

As for the religious leanings - if your objections to homosexuality is biblical, then you ARE/HAVE TO BE for the execution of gays, as dictated to us, by the bible.

Jason H. Bowden said...

mudkitty--

I am to believe you weren't using homosexuality as a slur, because you're playing Dr. Phil? Good grief.

*Think* about what you are saying. If a critic is always guilty of what he criticizes others for, then those who criticize others of, let us say, racism, would actually be the racists. If you reject this, then you must reject that criticism of homosexuality implies the critics are necessarily homosexuals.

Most of the prescriptions in Leviticus are ridiculous, but note Freud's theories are on a much higher dimension of stupid. Do you really believe, to take an example, that toddlers go through stages of psychosexual development? Maybe your liberal friends take Freud seriously, but I doubt anyone here does.

Lone Ranger said...

Thompson might not be another Reagan, but it's CERTAIN he isn't another Clinton or Obama. That's reason enough to vote for him.

Marshall Art said...

It's always amusing when a Mudkitty tries to use the Bible against believers. Having just partaken of a great theological debate spanning three different blogs, her comments are even more amusing. The Levitical punishments for sins described there no longer apply, Muddy. In the comments of my first blog posting, you can learn why. There. I've provided an easy source for you to peruse. Do your research.

(Pardon the self-promotion, Mark.)

Little Miss Chatterbox said...

As you know I love Duncan Hunter but unfortunately the viability just isn't there.

As for Fred Thompson I don't think he can really be classified as a moderate. I've looked fairly, extensively at his record and as I pointed out on my post the only issues I majorly seem to disagree with him on are his past support for McCain/Feingold which he has seemed to change a little on and his support for National Endowment for the Arts.

Otherwise, he appears to be a fairly stellar conservative, especially compared to the other supposed top 3 candidates.

I am in no way naive enough to view him as another Reagan but I'm finally optimistic that we might have someone to vote for in 2008 instead of just going out to vote against Hillary Clinton.