"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
--Romans 7:15 (RSV)
How can you vote against a guy with this slogan:
a vote for me is not a vote for Mike Protack
What's not to love?
If he somehow lets down his supporters, all four of them so far, I may have to write in Fred Thompson.
That's a great ticket: Elbert/Thompson 2008!
I'm Still With Fred Bumper Sticker
I'm voting for Romney in our presidential primary, but would write in Fred if it were allowed, or vote for him if he had made the ballot.
There will be a lot of post-mortems written about the Fred Thompson campaign, an effort that put together a lot of bright, hardworking people.But for now, a variation of something I said to some other conservative bloggers earlier today: Thompson more or less “debuted” with the 60 second video responding to Michael Moore, one of the most brilliant media messages we've seen in a long while from a conservative.
I think one of the reasons that video struck a chord with so many righty bloggers was because we're constantly seeing, and confronting, insane political rhetoric from the left. It's maybe even a an obsession of righty bloggers, or perhaps we give it more attention than it deserves. But every time Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell or Cindy Sheehan spout off, or Charlie Sheen goes off on his 9/11 conspiracy theories… every time Nancy Pelosi goes to meet with a dictator, or a prominent Democrat refuses to acknowledge progress in Iraq, or somebody on either side of the aisle suggests that wanting immigration law enforced is inherently racist, every time somebody puts out some insane conspiracy theory that suggests President Bush is behind terror attacks…
We on the right hear it, we get driven up the wall by it, we try to push back in our own limited way, and we're waiting for somebody with a bigger megaphone than us to push back. Very few high-profile Republicans give a full-throated pushback because A) they don't see it if they're up to their noses in legislative work on Capitol Hill or in the White House all day and B) they probably see responding to some fat propagandist or screeching antiwar widow-turned-celebrity as beneath them. (I realize this is a separate issue, but this helps explain some of Ann Coulter's appeal even when she goes too far - there is nobody on the left she won't take on).
Along comes Fred, who doesn't act as if rebutting Moore's propaganda is beneath him, and he points out that Moore likes to snuggle with censoring, brutal dictators, he suggests Moore is mentally unstable... and we loved it. We've been looking for this combativeness from a conservative for years, and it makes Giuliani's “I don't need Michael Moore to tell me about 9/11” sound like Marquess de Queensbury rules. To quote Frank J, we've been looking for somebody to “punch the hippies.”
Alas, there was little to none of that from Fred once he became a candidate. It became a fairly ordinary campaign, despite having some good folks around him.
That sums up the campaign well, I think. While he was the only solid conservative in the first or second tier, he never caught fire, due to his seemingly laid-back nature. If only he had "punched more hippies," indeed.
Looks like the only choice left is Romney, if for no other reason than he's the least objectionable, assuming he's not lying through his teeth and his (many) policy conversions are, in fact, genuine. If they're not, conservatives are just screwed this election. It may well benefit the conservative movement for the Democrat nominee to win at this rate to give us time to regroup and plan for the future.
I may still write in Thompson's name in November.
Thompson would wait on economic stimulus - Yahoo! News
More seriously, he said he was not ready to embrace a stimulus package."We're all concerned about the direction of the economy," said the former Tennessee senator. "We've had a good run, but we can't take growth for granted." He said "we've got to have a potential stimulus package on the table to be discussed if it would make sense to be used in short order, but we're not quite there yet."
And doing nothing might leave the economy stronger, he said.
"There's a case to be made for that," he said. "And it just requires strong heads at the table and not snap judgments, you know, by politicians on the road trying to think of something smart to say in 30 seconds."
Every time I read something about Fred Thompson I like him more. While the rest of the political world is running around outbidding each other in the size of the stimulus they want to provide (Hillary bid $70 billion then Obama bid $75. Or maybe I have that backwards, it's not like it matters. And apparently Bush is pushing for a $150 billion package. Geez.) Thompson is alone in recognizing that all of this is pointless, and possibly harmful if we do it the wrong way. A few reasons why none of these proposals will likely do any good:
1) They're just passing money around, not creating new wealth: all these proposal are doing is taking money from column A and putting it into Column B. That's not a stimulus, that's redecorating. The money will either come from borrowing money (which means the government will be crowding out others from the bond market), new taxes (which will be robbing Peter to pay Paul in the truest sense of that phrase), or the worst case scenario, creating new money, thereby adding to inflation and decreasing the value of the money we already have.)
2) Most estimates put this at a short and shallow recession, if one occurs at all. Given the slowness of the political process and the federal bureaucracy, by the time this whole process plays out the recession may be over, if it ever happens at all.
3) If you really want to help the economy, don't do it with a short-term outlook, do something that will help for a long time: cut taxes permanently. Businesses aren't going to increase their hiring or output based on a short-term policy change: that would bind them to a higher staffing level in the long term for a short-term gain. So, do something that will give them the confidence that this change will last: cut their taxes, remove regulatory impediment. If businesses see that any gain in production will be short-lived, they'll just get through it with increased overtime or temporary workers. If we want a more lasting increase in employment, we need to give them a reason to do so. So them some reason to believe that government will get out of their way for an extended period of time.
I've long felt that Thompson was the only candidate in the race with a pair, but now it seems he's the only one with a brain too.
See videos about South Carolina vcoters who have decided to Flip for Fred - switched support from one of the lesser candidates to Fred Thompson.
Give $10 at 10 PM for Fred Thompson:
A few of you came up with giving $10 at 10:00 tonight. Well, I liked the idea so much I convinced the rest of the campaign to get behind it. We sent an e-mail out to our small donors asking them to give $10 at 10:00 local time.Small donors are the backbone of Fred’s grassroots effort. $10 may not seem like a lot, but when thousands of people give it amounts to real financial support.
Get the word out. We only have a few hours to tell as many people as possible. Send e-mails, go on blogs, and talk to your Facebook and MySpace friends. Tell them $10 isn’t a lot when it goes to Fred and his conservative ideas.
You can be sure we’ll pass $1 million by midnight.
UPDATE: I see on the counter that we’re less than $7,000 away and we haven’t even come up to 10:00 pm on the East Coast. I know the Fred File is slow in loading. You may also be experiencing problems donating. Please be patient and try again after a few minutes. You guys are going to destroy the $1 million goal.
Here's a link to give:
A reader of the Corner sent in an idea that I think was a pretty good suggestion: The Republicans stop their feuding and their fighting and combine announcing Fred Thompson as president, Mitt Romney as Vice President, McCain as Secretary of Defense, and Giuliani as Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a cool idea. Now, anyone who is a not a moron likes everything about Fred Thompson, so he'd be a great president. Mitt Romney is a conservative in training, so he'd be good for vice president. The only thing McCain is right on is the war, so why not put him a position where that's the only view that matters. And Giuliani would be a great Secretary of Homeland Security if he would just prove his bona fides on illegal immigration by beating a Mexican drug smuggler to death with a Maglite -- something I'm sure he'd be more than willing to do.In addition, it could be announced that Mike Huckabee will be the White House Press Secretary where he can use his talking skills for good instead of evil. And Ron Paul could be made a security guard at the National Archives so he can make sure no one messes with the Constitution.
If Republicans announced a ticket with all the frontrunners on it, wouldn't they be unstoppable? They'd be taking the best of each Republican and putting it together into one super Republican -- like Voltron. While each of the robot tigers are kinda cool on their own, they're supercool and unstoppable when put together as the giant robot warrior Voltron (Fred Thompson: "And I'll form the head!"). The Democrats would run fleeing from such a thing and the Republicans would walk away with the election.
Right Wing Nut House is organizing another bogburst for Fred Thompson. So click below to give Fred money.
Reasons a Thompson victory in South Carolina is realistic:
1. Romney has dropped out of the running in SC, having pulled his ads and is transferring staff in order to ambush John McCain in Michigan.2. That leaves only three candidates with a realistic shot at winning in SC; Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. Amazingly, none of the three candidates will have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to financing. This levels the playing field considerably.
3. SC voters have made it clear that opposition to illegal immigration is one of the top issues in the state. Looking at the three candidates above, who do you think has the most consistent, conservative record on immigration?
4. Outside factors may play a role in the dynamics of the race. McCain may very well be grievously wounded by a Romney win in Michigan – a state he won in 2000. There would be little time for McCain to right himself following a loss there what with the SC primary 4 days later.
HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson - HUMAN EVENTS
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
The closer conservatives look at the primary campaign, the more they realize there is only one conservative in the race: Fred Thompson.
Fact: Chuck Norris is so corny that ethanol producers believe him to be a vast, untapped source of alternative energy.Fact: Mike Huckabee calls himself a Republican, but functionally he’s a pro-life Democrat. He’s a big government, tax-and-spend proponent of the Nanny State, who supports a nationwide smoking ban, government-sponsored wellness programs and more government regulation of private industries, such as minimum wage increases. He also has a grossly liberal record on illegal immigration.
Fact: Mike Huckabee granted over 1,000 pardons and commutations during his 10 years as governor – roughly one clemency every four days. In 17 years, Huckabee’s three predecessors – which included Bill Clinton, by the way – granted only 507 clemencies combined. The Huckster’s clemency recipients included violent criminals who reputedly “got religion” in prison. Should this man have the power of the presidential pardon?
Fact: According to the Arkansas Leader newspaper, Mike Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, raised more taxes than Bill Clinton did while governor of Arkansas. His tax record is so bad that even the members of the Arkansas Republican Assembly chose to endorse Fred Thompson rather than Huck. When the Club for Growth, a prominent conservative anti-tax organization, sharply criticized his tax record, Huckabee responded by calling them the “Club for Greed.” There’s nothing greedy about the concept that the money you’ve earned belongs to you.
Hat Tip: Club for Growth
But what sort of person is passionate about the political process? Not getting things done - but the process of gaining votes. Of going around pretending to be close personal friends with lots and lots of people one has never met before?Fred Thompson is in the middle of a 40 town Iowa tour - so he is hardly lazy. And he does go on television shows - thus dealing with critics, such as myself, who attacked him for not going on enough shows. But what sort of person would enjoy all this?
A lunatic. Someone who was interested in office for its own sake - not as a means to reduce the size and scope of government.
...
It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970's. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate - before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.No - someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics - i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it - i.e. be a liar.
And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.
Hat Tip: Instapundit.com
You want serious policy proposals? Thompson's got them.
You want a conservative voting record? Thompson's got it.
He's giving conservatives what we claim we want. Let's give him our votes. Come on, Iowa, do the right thing!
The more I read about this guy, the more I like him.
YouTube - Fred Thompson TV Ad: "Substance"
This is the ad the blogburst helped put on the air in Iowa. Click the image to the right to donate to Thompson's campaign.
RightWing Nut House has propsed a blogburst for Senator Fred Thompson this Thursday. It won't make much of a difference (especially my part of it), but it's still worthwhile to support the only true conservative in the race.
Campaign Ad showing Thompson is authentically conservative:
Fred on what he'd do first as President:
I've given him money; he's the first Presidential I've ever given money to. He's the only candidate in this race who I believe can both win and govern as a conservative. Please donate to him today.
It's been one of those weeks where religion has overshadowed almost everything else in the Presidential campaign.
1. Mitt Romney delivered what some are calling his JFK speech.
2. Fred Thompson admitted to not attending Church and said he wouldn't discuss his religious beliefs on the campaign trail. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.com)
3. Governor Huckabee claimed the explanation for his surge is the polls is "not a human one." (Which led to this hilarious comment: "The Inhumans Are Behind Huckabee")
4. Giuliani stated this morning that his thinking on [homosexual sexual activity] is informed by the Catholic church, that it is the act that makes it sinful, not the orientation. As Jay Nordlinger pointed out in the above link: "...when Giuliani said his thinking on the issue was influenced by Catholic teaching, I can't help but suspect more than a few Catholic Republicans fell out of their chairs."
So, as the self-proclaimed unofficial religious blogger of the DCBA (not that others aren't religious, I just blog about it more), you might wonder what I think about this. Or you don't, but I'm writing on it anyway.
The problem with both Romney's and Giuliani's statements (and JFK's) is that they seem to compartmentalize their religious beliefs. They are claiming to have religious beliefs, but that they won't carry them over to their activities as President. If you're truly devoted to God, how can your belief in Him not carry over to every part of your life? We should strive to make God part of every moment of our lives and allow Him to direct us at all times, not push Him aside at certain points. Now, realistically, due to our imperfections, we don't live up to that standard, but that should be our goal at all times. We can't consciously decide to push Him out of a certain part of our lives because our faith might inconvenient to ourselves or others. Giuliani's claim that his stand on those with same-sex attractions is informed by the Church is puzzling, given his stance on abortion, which is clearly not informed by the Church's teaching. He even supported partial-birth abortion until he considered challenging Hillary for the Senate in 2000. If someone can push God to the side that easily in one area, you have to wonder how easily they'll push him aside in others.
If someone is truly devoted to God, their faith in Him should inform everything they do. I have real concerns about someone who starts by admitting they won't let their faith impact their decisions as President. While a political officeholder should not take direct orders from a religious figure, they should allow their faith to inform the decisions they make. As Jimmy Akin notes, the leaders of the Mormon Church claim a power to define doctrine that not even the Pope claims and that's worrying for those who don't completely understand Mormonism. Essentially, the Pope can ratify what's long been believed by the Church, but not define brand-new doctrine or contradict existing doctrines. The Mormon elders, however, can apparently do so, as we've seen in their decisions banning polygamy and allowing blacks to become Mormon priests. Given that power credited to the elders, it's understandable that many people, even those who have deep dislike towards Mormons have their concerns about electing on President.
Disclaimer on my view of Mormons: I've known three Mormons in my life. Two ultimately became Catholic. I really didn't like one of them, and the other was his mother. No contact sin grade school. I haven't seen the third since high school, but he was a great guy. (We nicknamed him the "Stormin' Mormon," since this was right after the Gulf War.) I don't accept them as Christians, given some of their teachings, but do think they are valuable political allies.
Now, in a move that might surprise some people, the statement above I am most comfortable with from a political/American point of view is Thompson's. I don't much care if our politicians attend Sunday services. For example, not all Protestant denominations require attendance at service on Sundays, so members of those denominations should not held to the same standard on Sunday attendance as, say, a Catholic. Second, as was discussed by some members of the DCBA earlier this year, I could vote for an atheist if their political views were compatible with mine. (Comments from the DCBA: Me, Jeff the Baptist, Hube.) I care more about the policies and principles a candidate enunciates, rather than how they reach them. A person can do the Lord's work without intending to, and we should vote to make sure the Lord's work is done, rather than making sure someone who professes to be doing the Lord's work is elected. After all, a lot of evil has been done by those claiming to be working for the Lord. You'd think after the debacle some call the Jimmy Carter Presidency that Christians would know to look deeper than a mere surface Christianity, but sometimes we get caught up in someone's zeal. And Huckabee's zeal greatly concerns me. (Plus Huckabee's liberalism is greatly bothersome.)
Something religious conservatives need to keep in mind in this race: we're electing a President, not a Pope. They don't need to be right on every single point of religious doctrine to be the right person for the job. Look at their past public records, since that's the best indicator of how they'll perform in the future.
CNN Tries a Gotcha: 'Thompson Has No Hunting License'...So What? | NewsBusters.org
CNN has posted a Political Ticker entry trying to create a "gotcha" on 2nd Amendment supporter, Fred Thompson. CNN's South Carolina Producer Peter Hamby has breathlessly announced that "Thompson does not have hunting license," but the question is... so what? Do you HAVE to own a hunting license to be for the 2nd Amendment? Does Fred not owning a hunting license disqualify him as a gun rights advocate?
CNN just doesn't get it. It's quite possible to support the 2nd Amendment without owning or using a gun. I'm a member of the NRA, but don't own a weapon, and hadn't even fired one until earlier this year. (Thanks, Jeff!) Would this reporter also claim that you have to be a member of the press to support freedom of the press? I doubt it, and it's a dangerous game he's playing, since the example I just used would put 99+% of people opposing his freedom to make his living the way he does.
I guess I'm somewhat sensitive on this charge because it's been used against me as well. When people find out that I'm a member of the NRA but don't own a gun they look at me like I'm from Mars. When I simply explain that it's because they're right and the 2nd Amendment means what it says they get even more confused. Which I guess speaks badly of them and those who think similarly. It's possible to support a position without having a vested interest in it. You can support something without it having any benefit to you. And people who don't understand that are kind of sad. (Now, I never give to their Political Action Committee since I don't control where the money goes. It could end up in the hands of someone I don't support for other reasons. In fact, that's why I don't give to any PAC or party committee.)
Townhall.com::Random Thoughts::By Thomas Sowell
Since electricity is generated mostly by burning coal, has anyone calculated how much pollution is created by electric cars, even though none of that pollution comes out of their tailpipes?You may scoff at the Tooth Fairy if you like. But the Tooth Fairy's approach has gotten more politicians elected than any economist's analysis.
Is there anyone so willing to suffer as to watch all the political "debates" of both parties?
Now that Congress has violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech with "campaign finance reform" laws, in the name of getting the influence of money out of politics, have you noticed any less influence of money in politics?
The next time somebody in the media denies that there is media bias, ask how they explain the fact that there are at least a hundred stories about the shrinking arctic ice cap for every one about the expanding antarctic ice cap, which has now grown to record size.
Those who are looking forward to a second Clinton administration should remember what they say about movies -- the sequel is seldom as good as the original. And the original Clinton administration was not all that great.
Teaching is very easy if you don't care about doing it right and very hard if you do.
The way our current presidential "debates" are conducted, both Lincoln and Douglas must be turning over in their graves.
I believe in libertarian principles but not in libertarian fetishes. In any context, the difference between principles and fetishes can be the difference between night and day.
Of all the presidential candidates in both parties, Barack Obama is the best performer on stage. He has the most presence, the most command of his words, the most quietly dramatic style. What he actually says, however, is mostly warmed-over 1960s ideas that have been failing ever since the 1960s.
When people have to resort to words like "greed" or "exploitation," it is hopeless to try to have a rational discussion with them.
Why does Fred Thompson go around with his collar open, as if he were Harry Belafonte? It doesn't make him look younger. It makes him look like an old man trying to look young. It is as if Hillary Clinton tried to look young by wearing a mini-skirt. A bad image can overshadow good ideas.
Sowell's one of my favorite columnists, and his Random Thoughts columns are always fun.
[Thompson]'s proposed revitalizing America's armed forces by increasing the core defense budget, building up a million-member ground force, and instituting sweeping missile defense. He went where no other GOP candidate has yet gone with a detailed plan to shore up Social Security, by changing the benefits formula and offering voluntary "add on" accounts for younger workers. He would re-energize school vouchers. His border security blueprint certainly matches Mitt Romney's or Rudy Giuliani's in its, ahem, creativity and thoroughness.This week's tax proposal was decidedly fresh, going beyond the run-of-the-mill candidate promise to extend the Bush tax cuts, and calling for the end of the death tax and the AMT, a cut in the corporate tax rate and even a voluntary flat tax. According to a campaign source, in upcoming weeks Mr. Thompson will unveil plans to reduce federal spending by limiting nondefense growth to inflation, earmark reform, and a one-year freeze on the hiring of non-essential civilian workers and contractors.
There's plenty here to get conservative voters and bloggers and pundits engaged in some healthy, even lively, debate. That is, if they'd heard any of this. Most haven't, and for that Mr. Thompson has mostly himself to blame.
I think Thompson's biggest problem in this campaign is his late start. Not because it allowed other candidates to set the tone or attract the voters, but because the top campaign talent and activists were locked in. The only truly experienced national campaign staffers were those fired by McCain back during his campaign's cost-cutting days, so, with no disrespect to those people, there wasn't a large quantity of talent out there. When you add in that most of the party activists in New Hampshire and Iowa plus fundraisers were committed, there wasn't much for Thompson left to pick from in assembling an organization.
Which is a shame, because he's the only candidate in this race talking about ideas, putting forth policies that really could change things. The good news is that many voters are still making up their minds about who to support, even in the early primary states. Rush Limbaugh's non-endorsement of Thompson today should help a great deal also.
So, yeah, I'm a Fred Head.
He's the only person whose conservatism I trust left in the GOP field. At least among the credible candidates. This video shows some of the reasons I don't trust the others.
For those (like me) who asked the above question, National Right to Life explains their endorsement of Fred Thompson for President:
National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson based on three factors: his commitments on life issues, his record on life issues and his ability to win.
UPDATE: An alternate take:
The reason the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson is that they figured the best way to preserve life is to not piss off Fred Thompson.
Old girlfriends cast their vote for Thompson - Times Online
Fred Thompson's opponents won't get any dirt on him from his ex-girlfriends:
In the battle for the women’s vote, Fred Thompson has a secret weapon against Hillary Clinton - the legions of former girlfriends who still adore him and who want him to be president.The Hollywood actor and former Tennessee senator racked up an impressive list of conquests during his swinging bachelor days in the 1990s, but he appears to have achieved the impossible and kept their friendship and respect.
Lorrie Morgan, a country singer who dated Thompson and considered marrying him in the mid1990s, told The Sunday Times: “I couldn’t think of a bad word to say about Fred if somebody put a gun to my head.
“Fred is a perfect example of chivalry. He’s the kind of man little girls dream about marrying, who opens doors for you, lights your cigarettes, helps you on with your coat, buys wonderful gifts. It’s every woman’s fantasy.”
...
Morgan remembers encouraging Thompson to run for president when they were together. “I think he has a great chance of capturing the women’s vote. He’s majestic. He’s a soft, safe place to be and that could be Fred’s ticket. Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us,” she said.Georgette Mosbacher, a leading Republican fundraiser who dated Thompson after Morgan and remains a good friend, said he would defeat Clinton because of his appeal to “traditional women who will like the Southern gentleman in him”.
He is just as able to charm professional women, she added: “Another thing that is extremely attractive about Fred is that he is a really good listener. As a woman you can talk to Fred about any subject and know that you’re getting someone who respects your opinion and isn’t just being polite.”
...
However, he was also able to reassure them that he was on excellent terms with his first wife and home-town sweetheart Sarah Knestrick, whom he married in Tennessee at 17 and divorced 26 years later. Thompson said he had just spoken to her and she was intending to campaign for him.“It says a lot about his character that his ex-wife and ex-girlfriends think he is fabulous,” said Mosbacher. “Character is important in a president.”
...
When she was dating Thompson, Kehn complained that she had to chase other women away. “They just won’t leave him alone,” she told a gossip columnist. “I can’t get up to get a cocktail at a party without coming back and finding some girl sitting in my chair.”One of her rivals for his affection was Margaret Carlson, now a columnist for Bloomberg News, but she has also joined in the praise for Thompson. “He’s handsome, he’s charming, he sounds like a president,” Carlson gushed recently. “He’s smart, he’s articulate, he knows his line, he can hit his mark.”
Morgan blames herself rather than Thompson for the break-up of their “serious” relationship. Although she is a Republican, the country singer believes that she was too politically incorrect to suit the role of senator’s wife. “Country music is all about glamour and shine and politics is a little more reserved,” she said. “I felt I had to change my whole wardrobe.”
Thompson not only charmed her but also the women in her family. At the time, she had two young daughters who are now in their twenties. “My children thought the world of Fred and my mother thinks he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread,” Morgan said. “He has such charisma. He can go to a down-home Southern-fried chicken dinner and later that evening eat the best caviar and drink wine with an ambassador.”
But this quote in the comments section is more than just a little creepy:
I would love to have Fred Thompson for a son or a husband, preferably both!
Hat Tip: InstaPundit
A friend of mine and I had the following conversation after I pointed out the following shirt:
(Copied from Google Talk, her name removed to protect the innocent.)
Me: tell me that's not coolFriend: i might actually want to vote for him for real, so you won't catch me in one of those shirts
Me: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I think it's hilarious, but it might turn people off
Me: Although if you and I are both interested in voting for him, soemthing really weird is going on
Friend: + hurting people we disagree with is not the american way
Me: But they're hippies!
Friend: you my friend have forgotten that you are in the minority
me: Oh I'm well aware of that. But remember, which side has the guns?
Friend: again, not so much what the founding fathers had in mind
Me: I think Samuel Adams would have been okay with it.
At that point, she changed topics. I get that a lot with her, for some reason....
IMAO: Fred Thompson Facts Archives
Hilarious!
