NationStates Jolt Archive

(CNN) -- After spending months testing the waters for a presidential run, Sen. Fred Thompson made his candidacy official Wednesday evening.

Fred Thompson joins the race for the GOP nomination only four months before the first voting.

He made the announcement during a taping of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

Thompson will also talk about his decision to join the race for the Republican presidential nomination in a webcast scheduled to go online early Thursday.

A five-day campaign tour will follow Thompson's announcement, sources said last week.

Thompson will stump in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Then it's on to Lawrenceburg, Tennessee -- his hometown -- for a "homecoming" on September 15, the sources said.

Political observers say Thompson may be late entering the race. The first voting is only four months away and the others have been in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond for months.

"Expectations are sky high, which means he better perform flawlessly out of the box or a lot of people are going to start grumbling that he's not the great savior we thought he was," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.

Thompson's announcement came as Wednesday's GOP debate got under way in New Hampshire, which he skipped despite pressure to take part.

Last week, the New Hampshire Union-Leader said the state would consider a no-show as a snub.

"If Thompson waits until after the debate to make his announcement, it will appear to some as if he timed the announcement just to avoid the New Hampshire debate," the newspaper said.

"That would give his foes the chance to say he is either not serious about running for the nomination or is too unprepared to be considered a credible candidate."

Thompson created a fundraising committee that allowed him to begin raising money for a possible presidential campaign on June 1.

An actor best known for his role as District Attorney Arthur Branch in NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson was elected to the Senate in 1994 and served there for eight years.

Fred Thompson for 2008.

Who?

Perhaps Thompson will be the one to unite the Republican party?

Anyway, the race just became a little more interesting.

Who?

Sorry, I know all of us aren't Americans, so I'll link you, Fred Thompson. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson)

Sorry, I know all of us aren't Americans, so I'll link you, Fred Thompson. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson)

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to make you think I really cared.

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to make you think I really cared.

Well maybe you should so next time y'all won't complain when a "horrible" president is elected.

Well maybe you should so next time y'all won't complain when a "horrible" president is elected.

OK. that would make a good campaign slogan:

Fred Thompson '08. -- You've Been Warned.

Well maybe you should so next time y'all won't complain when a "horrible" president is elected.

Sadly it doesn't matter what party they're from nowdays they're all crooks trying to push America into a cauldron of disaster.

OK. that would make a good campaign slogan:

Fred Thompson '08. -- You've Been Warned.

You should be a slogan writer.

A man who's publicly stated intention is to use his presidency to overturn Roe vs. Wade - honestly, are there not better things to be focusing on?

has he discussed any other policies?

He made the announcement during a taping of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."
All the best political campaigns begin on late night television.

has he discussed any other policies?

Here you go:

Thompson has said that federalism is his "lodestar," providing "a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: 'Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?'"


Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.

I heard that he was running a year ago when i asked about a better candidate then Guiliani. Every one in the room laughed and then informed me of the GOP's secret dude they were gonna have come out as a candidate. Hes pretty awesome.

Here you go:

Thompson has said that federalism is his "lodestar," providing "a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: 'Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?'"


Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.


thanks.

im not impressed.

but i suppose that as an actor he will be able to deliver canned speeches well. it should be interesting to see how he does in a debate.

Here you go:

Thompson has said that federalism is his "lodestar," providing "a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: 'Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?'"


Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.


Honestly. Is this the best the GOP can come up with?

I'm sorry. But we're gonna completely stomp you in the election.

Honestly. Is this the best the GOP can come up with?

I'm sorry. But we're gonna completely stomp you in the election.

I'm not particularly sorry. I'm going to enjoy watching it happen. "Permanent Republican majority", indeed.

I'm just happy that the "is he or isn't he" stage is over.

And I'm now supporting Luthor.

Just what we need, another third rate actor that can deliver a speech but little else. I guess it's better than a third rate druggie that can't give a speech.

Fred Thompson for 2008.

Phuck Fred Thompson now.

Who cares. Maybe he'll knock down everyone and let Ron Paul take first.

Sucks for Law and Order though.

but i suppose that as an actor he will be able to deliver canned speeches well. it should be interesting to see how he does in a debate.

I'm sure he'll dish out plentiful helpings of that good ol' down-south-natured hospitality and charm bullshit.

He's also the only good old-fashioned republican running, and thus he'll have a good conservative core to ride on, and his position on roe v wade means he'll get the evangelical vote as well. He is also not just an actor he did serve in the senate.

All politicians are actors in a way. They make up fictional stories to promote blood, gore, sex, and other nice, evil things.

But seriously, any republican candidate, besides maybe Mr. Ron Paul, is a terrible choice. Fred Thompson just adds to that list of failures.

All politicians are actors in a way. They make up fictional stories to promote blood, gore, sex, and other nice, evil things.

I thought that was TV.

But seriously, any republican candidate, besides maybe Mr. Ron Paul, is a terrible choice. Fred Thompson just adds to that list of failures.

Why?

I thought that was TV. Not like they, nor the majority of the American people can really tell the difference anymore, right?


Why?

Because he is a typical neo con republican. All neo cons are terrible choices.

Not like they, nor the majority of the American people can really tell the difference anymore, right?



Because he is a typical neo con republican. All neo cons are terrible choices.

I might as well say that all democratic candidates are shit then, as well.

I might as well say that all democratic candidates are shit then, as well.

You might, but you'd be in a situation where, repeatedly, people would be reminding you that reality has a well-known liberal bias. :p

You might, but you'd be in a situation where, repeatedly, people would be reminding you that reality has a well-known liberal bias. :p

XD

I might as well say that all democratic candidates are shit then, as well.


Oh, they are. I know this. I'm not going to argue it with you.

I might as well say that all democratic candidates are shit then, as well.

Might as well,

The difference I feel is that the Republicans feel forced to pander to certain issues held by 'the conservative base' that I simply can't agree with.

Why isn't there a Republican who calls for an end to the debate on Roe vs. Wade - not one! Why don't they say that this is simply not a political issue and not something they care to discuss much.

Fine if people have their principles but I just feel that it's indicative of a frame of mind that I find inflexible, because the majority of their supporters are inflexible.

It's crap politics and it's spineless to some degree. These people are pro-choice in every other area of policy except this. It speaks of an arrogant attitude that I simple find distasteful.

All politicians are actors in a way. They make up fictional stories to promote blood, gore, sex, and other nice, evil things.
The only thing Thompson ever supported on L&O was good old, country-fried fascism. As such, it's nice to see him evolving the character by introducing it into new situations.
I wonder if he'll bring his own bookshelf to the debates so that he can stand immediately in front of it while waxing nostalgic about the good old days when he didn't have to hear about any of this "Miranda"-nonsense, and then wonder just who that Miranda chick was and why did she have to be such a complete bitch.

I really don't see how that is 'bad' per se, every party has certain issues that define them, and pro-life is just one of the one's that define the Republican Party.

What I personally would like to see is more parties then just the dems and reps.

Why isn't there a Republican who calls for an end to the debate on Roe vs. Wade - not one! Why don't they say that this is simply not a political issue and not something they care to discuss much.

The line between moral and political is a blurred one at best. Remember, for many people this is a very important political issue as it was primarily a decision of the courts rather than the legislature; now, whether or not that criticism is valid is another issue in and of itself, but suffice to say many people consider it a political issue and will punish candidates that don't treat it as such.

I personally loathe elective abortion, but I know my morals are not law and should not ever be considered such. As a result, that issue does not influence my voting choices in the slightest.

The only thing Thompson ever supported on L&O was good old, country-fried fascism. As such, it's nice to see him evolving the character by introducing it into new situations.
I wonder if he'll bring his own bookshelf to the debates so that he can stand immediately in front of it while waxing nostalgic about the good old days when he didn't have to hear about any of this "Miranda"-nonsense, and then wonder just who that Miranda chick was and why did she have to be such a complete bitch.

See, that's *EXACTLY* what i was talking about. *bows*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029769&postcount=22

I really don't see how that is 'bad' per se, every party has certain issues that define them, and pro-life is just one of the one's that define the Republican Party.

What I personally would like to see is more parties then just the dems and reps.

There are other parties, it's just that nobody votes for them.

There are other parties, it's just that nobody votes for them.

Partly because they cannot get their name out there, its too expensive and there is laws that the two ruling parties have passed that hamper their efforts.

Really, do you ever see CNN cover any third parties?

Who?

A loser. Don't you bother your sweet self about him.

A loser. Don't you bother your sweet self about him.

Surely you didn't call Fass sweet :p

Partly because they cannot get their name out there, its too expensive and there is laws that the two ruling parties have passed that hamper their efforts.

Really, do you ever see CNN cover any third parties?

Nope. Everything is based on how much money you have. If you're not at least a millionaire, you have no chance.

Partly because they cannot get their name out there, its too expensive and there is laws that the two ruling parties have passed that hamper their efforts.

Really, do you ever see CNN cover any third parties?

Actually, yeah, I have.

Nader got enough attention in 2000 to knock Gore off in Florida, and Perot was key to toppling GHWB in 1992. In 2004 the election was a referendum on the Bush Administration more than anything else, so a third party didn't really have much of a role to play in the debate.

Surely you didn't call Fass sweet :p

From what i hear, it depends on what part of him you're dealing with.

Surely you didn't call Fass sweet :p

I liked the alliteration there, you know? It just sounded perfect.

The line between moral and political is a blurred one at best. Remember, for many people this is a very important political issue as it was primarily a decision of the courts rather than the legislature; now, whether or not that criticism is valid is another issue in and of itself, but suffice to say many people consider it a political issue and will punish candidates that don't treat it as such.

I personally loathe elective abortion, but I know my morals are not law and should not ever be considered such. As a result, that issue does not influence my voting choices in the slightest.

Yeah, I didn't pick the best example but it's the most dearly held by the right however...

Here's (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm) his stance on the issues.

Honestly, you could swap the name for practically any other Republican candidate and there's hardly a difference - this is what I mean by inflexible - where's the ideas?

I liked the alliteration there, you know? It just sounded perfect.
Oh yeah - that one couldn't have gone any smoother. :p

From what i hear, it depends on what part of him you're dealing with.
It depends on whether or not you’re willing to humor his pretensions of wit. Call him clever, and he'll circle jerk with you from here till the last moving molecule in the Universe succumbs to the forces of entropy, but if you dare imply he might be wrong, you’ll see displays that'll make a rabid dog look positively cuddly in comparison.

It depends on whether or not you’re willing to humor his pretensions of wit. Call him clever, and he'll circle jerk with you from here till the last moving molecule in the Universe succumbs to the forces of entropy, but if you dare imply he might be wrong, you’ll see displays that'll make a rabid dog look positively cuddly in comparison.

You are most positively on a roll. For what they're worth, you got two *bows* outta me this eve. *bows*

I can't call him clever without reminiscing a smidge over Monty Python sketches ...

http://www.geocities.com/televisioncity/8889/poetry/mp-wilde.htm

It depends on whether or not you’re willing to humor his pretensions of wit. Call him clever, and he'll circle jerk with you from here till the last moving molecule in the Universe succumbs to the forces of entropy, but if you dare imply he might be wrong, you’ll see displays that'll make a rabid dog look positively cuddly in comparison.

Couldn't you have just said, "Agree with him, and he'll love you. Disagree with him, and he'll hate you." Instead? :)

I really don't see how that is 'bad' per se, every party has certain issues that define them, and pro-life is just one of the one's that define the Republican Party.

What I personally would like to see is more parties then just the dems and reps.

The problem with third parties is they take votes away from the second choice so the person you really don't want to win, wins. Without third parties Nixon, Reagan and GW would not have been elected. So if one votes third party they are voting for the person that is just opposite of what they want in.

Couldn't you have just said, "Agree with him, and he'll love you. Disagree with him, and he'll hate you." Instead? :)
It's never that simple with him. He's got some extremely ... severe issues. Quite wounded.
As for Fiddleysticks, though ... dunno, he seems on the level. *shrug*

Couldn't you have just said, "Agree with him, and he'll love you. Disagree with him, and he'll hate you." Instead? :)
Could have, chose not to, won't reconsider. This thread will grow terribly dull if we limit ourselves to merely vilifying a single person.

Could have, chose not to, won't reconsider. This thread will grow terribly dull if we limit ourselves to merely vilifying a single person.

True. We're doing well by sticking to villifying an entire political persuasion.

Here's (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm) his stance on the issues.

Honestly, you could swap the name for practically any other Republican candidate and there's hardly a difference - this is what I mean by inflexible - where's the ideas?

Most of those are outright dangerous in the current environment...

Most of those are outright dangerous in the current environment...

Oddly enough, the conservatives have no shortage of attitude that qualifies as "outright dangerous in the current environment" .... by def, being conservative.
;)

Although, the other wing has a few bad ideas too. Just not as many.

Most of those are outright dangerous in the current environment...

So are we suppose to back down on what we believe in because our guy in the WH screwed up? It may be dangerous or whatever, but I'd rather loose an election and keep some of these ideals then change them and win an election.

Oddly enough, the conservatives have no shortage of attitude that qualifies as "outright dangerous in the current environment" .... by def, being conservative.
;)

Although, the other wing has a few bad ideas too. Just not as many.

They do have bad ideas but at least they have some different ideas, some genuine cause for debate, which is why the Democrats tend to tear themselves apart whereas the Republicans successfully manage to present 1 set of ideas and it doesn't really matter who actually gets in - may as well be an actor since that's as much as they're doing.

They do have bad ideas but at least they have some different ideas, some genuine cause for debate, which is why the Democrats tend to tear themselves apart whereas the Republicans successfully manage to present 1 set of ideas and it doesn't really matter who actually gets in - may as well be an actor since that's as much as they're doing.

QFT.
*bows*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Hsas-chart.jpg/180px-Hsas-chart.jpg


Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.


Sorry...too much Red & Orange, not enough Green. :p

Here you go:

Thompson has said that federalism is his "lodestar," providing "a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: 'Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?'"


Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.


so in other words he's another damd right wing loonie. haven't we been screwed enough by them for the past 50 years?

=^^=
.../\...

I'm happy he's officially in. It will be interesting to see how he handles himself during the campaign. Right now he's second according to Rasmussen reports, this announcement could either boost him into 1st, or a few messups could have him going the same way as McCain.

It hasn't changed my opinions, the people i want to win (in order from most to least):

Obama
Edwards
Guliani
Romney
Thompson
McCain
Clinton

Awesome, the dude from Law & Order.

Isn't there a line on one of the radio stations in GTA: San Andreas something like "actors make the best presidents, they lie for a living"

The problem with third parties is they take votes away from the second choice so the person you really don't want to win, wins. Without third parties Nixon, Reagan and GW would not have been elected. So if one votes third party they are voting for the person that is just opposite of what they want in.

Actually, every President since Carter is only in office because Third Parties drew a substantial amount of votes away from their opponent.

Here you go:

Thompson has said that federalism is his "lodestar," providing "a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: 'Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?'"

* Thompson supports free trade and low taxes.
* He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.
* Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.
* He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.
* Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.
* Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform.
* Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then.
* He is opposed to withdrawal from Iraq.
* He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.


So he's like Ron Paul, but worse. Fucking excellent.

Who?

Just type "postcount +1" and spare us the infantile bitching, okie dokie?

Allow me to quote Bill Hicks:

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

All the best, just try to get someone in who won't bomb the fuck out of brown people, hmm?

Allow me to quote Bill Hicks:

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

All the best, just try to get someone in who won't bomb the fuck out of brown people, hmm?

Actually, I think the disagreement between the candidates right now is over which brown people to bomb.

Actually, every President since Carter is only in office because Third Parties drew a substantial amount of votes away from their opponent.

Actually, I really don't see a case for that in Reagan's election. Anderson's total was less than the spread between Reagan and Carter. Plus he was a Republican, so the assumption is he drew more votes from Reagan anyway...

Allow me to quote Bill Hicks:

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

All the best, just try to get someone in who won't bomb the fuck out of brown people, hmm?
Luckily, Thompson isn't the guy who has promised to invade Pakistan.

That's Obama.

Well maybe you should so next time y'all won't complain when a "horrible" president is elected.

Anti-Americanism transcends simple leadership.

Luckily, Thompson isn't the guy who has promised to invade Pakistan.

That's Obama.

Congratulations. You win the take comments out of context award OR the listen to Hillary taking comments out of context and then repeating it award. Your prize is getting pwned. Now go home moron.

Anti-Americanism transcends simple leadership.
Incorrect!

As an anti-American, I'm disgusted that you made this assumption of us!

Just type "postcount +1" and spare us the infantile bitching, okie dokie?

better yet, dont even bother with that.

Luckily, Thompson isn't the guy who has promised to invade Pakistan.

That's Obama.
Yeah, Thompson just made veiled threats at Iran.

Fred Thompson for 2008.

I saw him on Law and Order. He's got experience for the part of being a Republican president.

Great, another Neocon loon, I'm starting to think the Republicans aren't even trying anymore...

Well he's talking about 'unifying the country' and 'breaking the political deadlock' but for a Republican I doubt this about him, he will most likely end up another partisan hack and obstructionist to Congress.

I'm happy he's officially in. It will be interesting to see how he handles himself during the campaign. Right now he's second according to Rasmussen reports, this announcement could either boost him into 1st, or a few messups could have him going the same way as McCain.

It hasn't changed my opinions, the people i want to win (in order from most to least):

Obama
Edwards
Guliani
Romney
Thompson
McCain
Clinton


For me if anything would be these in this order of most to least, but i would pick a third party before picking any of these.

Guliani
Thompson
McCain
Obama
Romney
Edwards/Clinton

For me if anything would be these in this order of most to least, but i would pick a third party before picking any of these.

Guliani
Thompson
McCain
Obama
Romney
Edwards/Clinton

Of course you would pick a third party, you want all the looney presidents. At least Guliani is more socially liberal than Thompson or Paul. But he is also way more of a cowboy than either of them. All the Republican presidents are ass, when you think you could get no worse than Bush for the country you get a line up of Thompson, Guliani, and Paul. It's like no show could be stupider than Ren & Stimpy, and then to replace it you get Cow & Chicken, Rocko's Modern Life, or Spongebob Squarepants.

Vote Luthor.

He has an illiegal alien agenda that everybody can agree to hate.

Ah yes, it's threads like this that remind me why every excursion here makes me a little less...happy.

From what I've seen, the only ones I come close to supporting are Ron Paul and McCain, and even then with some reservation. Basically, I'm glad I can't vote.

Honestly. Is this the best the GOP can come up with?

I'm sorry. But we're gonna completely stomp you in the election.

Not if the dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary (which is most likely to happen)

Actually, every President since Carter is only in office because Third Parties drew a substantial amount of votes away from their opponent.

I wouldn't say that's the case for Reagan or Bush 41.

Isn't there a line on one of the radio stations in GTA: San Andreas something like "actors make the best presidents, they lie for a living"

Yes!!

Well he's talking about 'unifying the country' and 'breaking the political deadlock'

Same bullshit Shrubya gave about "i'm a uniter, not a divider" and whatever else he said about "political deadlock" (i forgot, oh well)

Simply the keywords of another iron-hand attempt to force the country to pander to his constituent base, whoever agrees with his public face (and vice versa). Fuck him and fuck his constituents.

Yeah, Thompson just made veiled threats at Iran.
That's true. Thompson made some pretty thinly veiled threats toward Iran. Similarly, Obama specifically raised the possibility to invading Pakistan.

Way to antagonise people, guys.

I actually like that Fred "Bush III" Thompson is running. As frontrunner Ron Paul stated at the recent debate, Fraudulent Fred (the abortionist lobbyist and trial lawyer) will merely further split the pro-war vote, making it easier for the Champion of the Constitution to be nominated. That will make it easier for everybody to redefeat Communism in 2008 (ie. stop Hillary) and to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.

Hopefully, come January 2009, we're watching the inauguration of President Paul and the restoration of laissez-faire. Fred Thompson just makes it easier for the Revolution to succeed.

I actually like that Fred "Bush III" Thompson is running. As frontrunner Ron Paul stated at the recent debate, Fraudulent Fred (the abortionist lobbyist and trial lawyer) will merely further split the pro-war vote, making it easier for the Champion of the Constitution to be nominated. That will make it easier for everybody to redefeat Communism in 2008 (ie. stop Hillary) and to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.

Hopefully, come January 2009, we're watching the inauguration of President Paul and the restoration of laissez-faire. Fred Thompson just makes it easier for the Revolution to succeed.

I like you, you're silly.:D

Actually, I really don't see a case for that in Reagan's election. Anderson's total was less than the spread between Reagan and Carter. Plus he was a Republican, so the assumption is he drew more votes from Reagan anyway...
Hey, since the thread's about Thompson, and, invariably, Reagan came up ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09thompson.html
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/09/thompson_advised_lockerbee_accused/9102/