Fred Thompson on Fire (Videos)

11 Comments to “Fred Thompson on Fire (Videos)”

1. ZC Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

   I’m 95% sure he’s running for President because he lost some kind of bet . . .

2. SPET3R Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

   Where was this guy the last couple of debates?? Honestly is he new?? I don’t know how much this debate will affect his standings? It will be interesting to see the results in SC. Seems like everyone was talking about Michigan, but Michigan has no delegate votes!! They cannot be seated at the convention…

3. Dan Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

   I hate to sound like Ron Paul here, but in Huckabee’s defense, wouldn’t the founding fathers find our current foreign policy to be a bit arrogant as well? I know times have changed but George Washington’s farewell address is something that the bulk of the Republican party today would really be at odds with. I won’t even open the pandora’s box of going into depth on former Republican Pres. Eisenhower’s farewell address and his remarks about the “millitary industrial complex.”

   Also, I am still not understanding where this criticism of Huckabee as a liberal is comming from. The man’s bona fides in the realm of social conservatism seem to be beyond reproach, though I am quickly learning that most establishment conservatives don’t give a damn about social conservative issues other than using them to drive people to the polls. Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS though and establish a “fair tax,” that seems like pretty right-wing economic thinking to me?

   I understand that taxes went up while he was govenor of Ark. but the people there don’t seem to have any animosity towards him about it and Huckabee has explained those tax increases to my satisfaction and I don’t think they are a reflection of how he would act as president.

   The conservative movement has had to endure plenty of neo-cons and wall-street cons taking the reigns, why the fact that social-conservatives are flexing their muscles is tearing the conservative movement apart is way beyond me.

   Fred has some nice things to say but he really should have been saying them back in August. I wonder how all his supporters will feel when he endorses McCain in time for Super Tuesday.

4. Brandon Henak Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 2:24 am

   I am one of his supporters and he will not be out after Super Tuesday, his momentum is building despite the nay saying.

   Go to his site, http://fred08.com , you can watch the money and supporters flow in.

   They have had to shut the doors at his events because the buildings were at capacity. Fred Thompson is the clear conservative choice, people are seeing that with plenty of time to win this race.

5. SPET3R Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

   Brandon, please cite those events… The one’s I’ve heard about were a disappointment. I know you’re fully on board with Fred… if it were the case why aren’t the polls reflecting Fred’s popularity? He’s still at only 10% at the most. Everyone where else its McCain, Huckabee or Romney

6. Brian Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

   SPET3R,

   The Dems took away all the delegate votes for Michigan, the Reps halved the number of delegates from 60 to 30.

7. Brandon Henak Says:
   January 13th, 2008 at 2:09 am

   “How are things going on South Carolina? Twice today, we have had to shut down an event because the crowds to see Fred Thompson got so big that they exceeded capacity for the venue.

   Hopefully that will translate into some climbing poll numbers soon. But it certainly seems to have led to a jump in contributions to Fred’s campaign. Back around the 1st of the year Fred set a fund raising goal of $540,000 by January 11th. The campaign hit that goal just before midnight on January 10th according to the total figure posted on their website. $540,000 in about ten days isn’t a bad total to raise, but now just a day after hitting that goal Fred’s total is at $752,000 meaning that contributions to the campaign have accelerated with approximately $212,000 coming in just in the last 24 hours or so..”

   http://www.kxma.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=197393

8. SPET3R Says:
   January 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am

   Thanks for the clarification Brian… I’ve been told by other GOP friends that there aren’t any delegate votes in Michigan.

   Alright Brandon… the contributions have been coming in… Ron Paul has a lot of contributions also. I can see why Fred Thompson was more fired at the last debate. However, I’d like to see some results that reflect that. It would also be a shame if early voting plays a role? Is there early voting in SC?

9. Brian Says:
   January 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

   Dan,

   I think a lot of the things our government does can be considered arrogant and as you pointed out, probably offend George Washington were he alive today. Projecting freedom abroad probably isn’t one of them, and Huckabee doesn’t seem to be afraid of interventionism, though his policies change from day to day so you never know.

   You wrote, “I am quickly learning that most establishment conservatives don’t give a damn about social conservative issues other than using them to drive people to the polls.”

   I don’t really know what to make of this … is Huckabee the only person talking about “social conservative issues”? Maybe if Huck fans weren’t busy destroying Romney as a Mormon (I’m not including you on this) we could have a serious candidate who is socially conservative on life and family issues. I don’t see Huck fans spending their time berating McCain or even Guiliani much, who are by far the most socially liberal candidates. It seems to me as if Huck fans would rather use “social issues” as a ruse to divide the movement than seriously consider how to preserve conservative principles.

   You also wrote, “Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS though and establish a “fair tax,” that seems like pretty right-wing economic thinking to me?”

   I’ve already discussed this on GOP3, but once again the IRS simply is not going to go away. Even if you get rid of the income tax, there is still going to be a massive federal bureaucracy maintaining control of taxation in the United States. Instead of trying to change the form of taxation in the United States, we should try simplifying the existing code. On this, Huckabee clearly has the worst record of any Republican candidate: he has passed more and larger taxes than anyone else.

   You also wrote, “[...] the people there don’t seem to have any animosity towards him about it [...] and I don’t think they are a reflection of how he would act as president.

   This contradicts everything I have read about his tenure as Governor. He divided the Republicans, allied himself with Democrats, and generally made himself the enemy of the Republican Party. Look up some of David J. Sanders columns, he’s talked about this issue ad nauseum. Huckabee ruined conservatives by aligning himself with the left, be it on education with the NEA or whoever. As far as how he would act as President, I think he’s made it pretty clear that he believes the government can help solve problems hitherto left to the people or the states themselves to solve, whether it pertains to eating habits or the arts (as extreme examples).

   You also wrote, “The conservative movement has had to endure plenty of neo-cons and wall-street cons taking the reigns,”

   I don’t know what a wall street con is, but I am going to start refering to myself as a Menasha-con. Actually I’m going to hereby announce a new axis of conservatism: the Wall Street - DC - Menasha, WI axis.

   Con’t: “why the fact that social-conservatives are flexing their muscles is tearing the conservative movement apart is way beyond me.”

   Flexing their muscles? I love how the Huckabee people consider themselves the be-all end-all as far as social issues. As far as I can tell, Huck fans are doing all they can to destroy the few methods available to them for advancing social issues by destroying Romney and allowing social liberals like McCain and Rudy to perservere. Do Huck fans want to sacrifice social issues if it means that they won’t be personally in chage and also allowed to justify bigger government to go along with conservative social principles?

10. Brian Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    By the way, Brandon, Fred is my #2 guy behind Romney.

    My order is hereby:

    Romney, Fred, Paul (seriously), Rudy, McCain, Huckabee.

11. Dan Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Brian, thank you for giving me so much to mill over…

    To preface everything here, I am a McCain supporter, I am defending Huckabee though because I think he is a decent man that hasn’t been given a fair-shake on this blog and he will make a great Vice President.

    Regarding Gen. Washington, you are right there are plenty of things our gov’t does that he would consider arrogant so it wasn’t fair of me to play that card since the scope of what he would disaprove of is so vast that in all honesty he probably would vote for Ron Paul if he could, and I am not a Paul supporter per say so I won’t even go there.

    I will take you to task on the point about Washington and “projecting freedom.” America had every chance to aid the “republican” side of the French Revolution, and Jefferson strongly supported such action. Washington sided with Hamilton and the federalists though and felt that trade with England was more valuable than the cause of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in France. Of course, in retrospect, the French Revolution unleashed some pretty vicious forces onto the world-political stage and it is certainly for the best that the US did not get involved.

    You raise a fair point regarding Huckabee and interventionalism, his polices are a bit hazzy in that regard and I haven’t quite pegged where he is at. Though I did apprecaite his recent comments on the Colbert Report about not just chasing Bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but into Hell being willing to “Charge Hell with a waterpistol if neccesary.”

    Thank you for not including me in the group of people who are “busy destroying Romney as a Mormon.” I have heard, in the msm, mostly that Evangelical Christians didn’t vote for Romney in Iowa becuase he was Mormon, I don’t know if it is so. In my experience most evangelicals aren’t going to let docrtine determine their votes to such a great extent.

    I think Catholic politicans like Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, etc, were able to capture huge majorities of the evangelical and fundementalist vote, even though I suppose some of these churches teach that the Church is the “whore of Babalyon” etc. Maybe I am wrong though, is there some sort of detente between Evangelicals and Catholics that does not exist between Evangelicals and Mormons?

    Huckabee is not the only person talking about social conservative issues but he has been the most consistent about it. Ironically had Romney been a devout Mormon on the pro-life issue back when he was gov of Mass. he probably would be doing a lot better right now.

    I think Huck fans have been preety hard on Guiliani, in fact, I think Huckabee’s success is partially a revolt against Guiliani. As for McCain, I think it becoming very clear to many people that McCain is pretty neutral on a lot of social conservative issues. He is not going to be a crusader for the pro-life cause, but he probably won’t do it any damge either, and he just might have to bring somone on the ticket, like, oh say, Mike Huckabee, who can motivate the values voters. Watching what happend in Iowa and New Hampshire and now the interplay between Michigan and SC, a more cynical person than myself might feel there is a sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” between Huck and McCain.

    Thank you for the detailed answer on the IRS question.

    Look at a poll from his home state to see that the rank and file Republican voters there do love Huckabee.

    Wall-Street cons, maybe I was a tad glib. To paraphrase Huckabee here, people who “put wall street before mainstreet.” I guess I simply mean people who’s biggest stake in the “conservative movment,” is the extent to which they can bend it to the classically “liberal” economic paradigm of something like the gilded age in the 1890’s. The liberals/democrats are much to be blamed with a lot of the errosion of values in this country that came to the forefront in the 1960’s counter-culture, but big business does not get off guilt free either. Just one small example, I don’t think it is the fault of the democratic party that at one time everything was closed on Sunday in America and now-a-days Sunday is not that different from any other working day. I suppose you’d say though that this is simply the free-market making the best decision for us.

    I am not saying a planned, top-down, economy is the answer, but I think we as a nation were doing a lot better when most people (rather than gov’t or big biz) owned the means of production. The farmer had his land, the blacksmith his forge, ma and pop owned the hardware store, a local italian family owned the local italian restaraunt, etc. This is more or less the economic idea of “distibutionism,” which G.K. Chesterton (who Huckabee quoted in his victory speech in Iowa) and Hillarie Belloc, but all this is probably getting way out of the context of the ‘08 election.

    I can’t speak for all social conservatives but taking a stab at it anyway, I think a lot of people who care about these issues feel real marginalized. When the Republicans were sticking it to the dems with those Defense of Marriage ammendments, what did the dems say, “Oh I think we need to talk about the issues Americans acually care about like (universal) Healthcare, (Public) education, and (welfare state) jobs.” The dems and the media have done a real good job painting issues that matter to social conservatives as innane and crumbling vestiges of a wicked past that will wash away as soon as we all just “grow up,” and start focusing on democrat issues.

    Of course we know in truth that the democratic machine care deeply about social conservative issues, opposing them, that is. Obama is probably as passionte about being pro-choice as Huckabee is about being pro-life, but he doesn’t need to say it because it is just taken for granted that any dem will tow the line on that, it is a sad that in America we have a pro-choice party, and a party that is dangerously close to taking a “big tent” approach on the life issue and is running out of national leaders who speak with conviction on it. I am a McCain supporter, but I am including him in this criticism. Whenever McCain is asked about the life issue he simply talks about apointing judges like Alito and Roberts, that is all well and nice, but if somone were to ask Pope Bennidict for his thoughts on abortion and all he said was that he intended to appoint Cardinals similar to those his predecesor appointed, yes that is a good sign, but it seems a bit tepid to say the least.

    Getting back to what I said earlier, if you are looking for somone to blame for Huckabee, blame Rudy. I get the feeling that a lot of establishment figures in the party (and no offense but I am including you in the lower echelon of this) felt that Rudy was there man. They tossed out Romney as a socially conservative alternative, since Romney had all of a sudden become a social conservative, and I think there was much excitment about a Rudy-Romney ‘08 ticket. Of course history got in the way. Huckabee staged something of a grass-roots rebellion to save the very heart and soul of the party, and frankly he’s already won in many respects.

    To close up this rambling comment, I’ll quote a Catholic blog that I read frequently, this really sums it up on a lot of this…

    “All of us Christian conservatives who have been threatening to stay home or vote third party if Rudy is the nominee really are serious. After being told for months that Giuliani’s pro-choice history didn’t matter, Iowans turned out and voted for the most religiously vocal candidate available, and they did so pretty overwhelmingly. So for those who are now shouting, “Anyone but Huck,” and wondering how to quiet the storm, the answer is: Throw Rudy overboard. There are much more conservative candidates out there than Rudy, and religious conservatives will be much more pliable once they’re not being threatened with a pro-choice, anti-gun, cross-dressing New Yorker.

    At the end of the day, I’m not crazy about Huckabee, though I’d vote for him in the unlikely event that he’s actually the nominee. But the message I hope is getting through somewhere over in party headquarters is: If you totally ignore pro-life Republicans, things you don’t like will start happening.”

Leave a Comment