Fred Thompson to run for President!

[rahmota]

Squall: Yeah Giuliani and Clinton both have large Fs in their record for 2nd amendment protections. So I dont want to see either of them in there for that. Regardless of how "bad" new york supposedly is the tactics Giuliani used are more like something you'd see in the middle east or old school soviet union. Not quite that bad but definately too close for comfort. Saying its new york he had to do something is just a cop out in my opinion. Giuliani is not someone I'd want leading this country, heck I'd not vote for him for county dog catcher.

Not to mention his stand on health care. I do like clintons view on that somewhat. But I am beginign to feel that maybe the country wont be ready for a woman president, at least not that one. I have definately come to the conclusion that Obama will not be getting to the white house for a variety of reasons even if he does get the democratic nod somehow. A black man with an outsiders history in washington is too sudden a shake up for the business as usual beltway folks.

Thompson is an interesting factor in all this though. He was a lobbyist and some of the stuff he lobbied for like the deregulation of the savings and loans back in the 80s and claims to be prolife but lobbied for a pro abortion issue make me concerned about his backbone. As in can he be bought and if he can is he an honest cop about it?

The man has a few too many contradictions about some of his voting record. Not to mention his views on some things are not too comfortable with me.

Suffice it to say that its shaping up that I will be choosing the lesser of two evils and not liking anyone running.

Also it will be a very interesting and ugly race.

[CancelMyService]

My question is, if Fred Thompson becomes President will all the speeches he gives begin with the *DUN-DUN* sound from Law & Order?


Fred seems like the Republican party's last ditch attempt to resonate with the good ol' boys while maintaining the same GOP stance on pretty much everything (his views on abortion are especially unnerving if you're of the Pro-Choice persuasion).

Also, I'd wager Clinton has more support than people realize. The Fox News and talk radio types have spent so much time demonizing her that it's almost considered impolite to admit you like her, yet my wife's grandparents (who are both in their 80s and hardly liberal on a lot of things) both think she'd make a good President. I'm not saying I'm a Hillary fanatic, but she's not the satan incarnate some would want you to believe.

People want to play the "universal health care will raise your taxes" card, but I'd suggest that any raises in taxes would probably be more than offset by not having to pay your premiums, or get them deducted out of your paycheck. Worst case, you take home the same amount of money but the deductions you currently have just go somewhere else.

Finally, while it is important, there are other matters that should be considered when voting other than the Second Amendment. Deciding who leads the free world shouldn't come down to "who lets me play with the most boom-sticks".

[AFPheonix]

I really think Hillary won over a lot of people during the most recent debates just with her sheer mastery of the topics and policies that were brought up. I think she'd do a really good job. I think she has kind of the same problem Al Gore had when he ran last: good legislator and policy wonk, bad campaigner. We'll see how that goes.

[squall]

Giuliani HAD to crack down on crime in his previous position. He had to look over New York! Not some place in the middle of nowhere where crime is unheard of. A lot of places need stricter law enforcement and he will help that problem.

And he did a reasonable job at that in New York City, but from what I hear Bloomberg has done better. But leading a city, even New York City, and leading the nation and the free world are two different things. Guliani is shaping up to be another G.W. Bush in the making. His stance on illegals (visting workers and all) is similar, his goals in Iraq are similar. He has Fox News in his pocket. He has restricted free speech, and he is threatening tight gun controls uncharacteristic of the Republican party. He is unproven on the national or international political scene and a shady individual. And he is riding on the coat-tails of his popularity during 9-11. If he is elected, he will be Bush's man in the white house. I like Fred Thompson better, but do I think he will be a strong man in these times, not really. He has a slightly questionable past himself. Everybody else in the Republican party is either unproven or unpopular enough to not be nominated. Or if you are John McCain, you are a strong politician with Bush's tacit approval, and a bad campaign manager.

I vote Republican normally, but this time I plan on voting on somebody I believe can handle the job and hopefully improve our national outlook. Not somebody who is either unproven, or an adequate stand-in to reap what Bush has sown, which I believe the Republican candidates are. They will continue Bush's policies and Congress and the Senate will not back them.

I believe change and hope lies not with the Republican party this time. They will probably not win anyway. That leaves Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Clinton is the most experienced, the most educated, and the strongest of the three. She has the benefit of having a husband who has done the job himself for eight years. No matter how many talk smack about her, there are more that want to see her elected, just like Bush in 2004. And the branches of government as they are now will better respond to a Clinton/Obama than they would Guliani or (God forbid) Newt Gingrich.

As for the old rich white men theory.....alot of rich white people are liberal, especially the nouveau riche. Old rich white liberals will vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is, and old rich white conservatives will vote republican. The number of young voters is increasing due to our exploding internet culture.

[Boozy]

If self-confessed adulterer Giuliani got the Republican nomination, does that mean that the Republicans would finally be forced to shut the fuck up about "family values"?

I suppose we shouldn't hold our breath.

[CancelMyService]

I wonder how all the Christian Coalition types feel about Rudy's frequent dalliances in the world of cross-dressing

[Rapscallion]

Depends - is there anything in the bible about not wearing the clothes of the other gender? I've not read it for a while, so I have no idea.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

I dont recall anythign in specific about that but I am sure they could come up with something.

As for not looking at just the second amendment violations of a candidate. Looking at wherther they respect the constitution and people's rights on that is a good test to help determine how they will react to civil rights questions in other areas. I will agree that it is not the only thing one should look at but definately one of the more important as it helps guide how they interpret the constituion.

[Greenday]

Well, we could always go with my joke option: Vote for Nader!

[CancelMyService]

I dont recall anythign in specific about that but I am sure they could come up with something.

As for not looking at just the second amendment violations of a candidate. Looking at wherther they respect the constitution and people's rights on that is a good test to help determine how they will react to civil rights questions in other areas. I will agree that it is not the only thing one should look at but definately one of the more important as it helps guide how they interpret the constituion.

Given how much the Second Amendment is up for debate, I hardly consider it that good of a test. I wonder why aren't there First Amendment Scorecards for each candidate. Each person's records on free speech would be a far better indicator if suitability for public office, but I guess I'm just an idealist.

Honestly, after seeing the mailings they put out to scare voters into voting for certain candidates or parties, I put the NRA in the same boat as PETA. Yeah, their goals may be admirable but their tactics are beyond questionable. It's probably not even calcuable the damage done by the chuckleheads that have been voted into office just because the NRA carpet-bombed the populace into thinking the other guy will go door to door and take everyone's guns away. My father-in-law was convinced Gore would do just that solely based on literature he was sent by the NRA and all their associated "really we aren't the NRA, we just put out the same stuff they do" groups.

I'm just saying, I don't care if you want to have guns or not, but if you have to resort to distortions and flat out falsehoods to get people who agree with you elected, that's bullshit. These groups posit the case that the right to own guns is beyond reproach, why do they have to rely on scare tatcic pandering if they're so in the right?

[AFPheonix]

A lot of groups do just that, not just the NRA or PETA. You should see some of the crap that comes out from anti-abortion groups.

In my opinion, anyone who votes for a candidate based solely on one hot-button issue needs to have their voting card taken away, as clearly they aren't able to exercise their right to vote well.

I take back what I said about Ron Paul, too. Now that I've looked into him more and discovered that he was the lone dissenting vote to disallow congress to award contracts to businesses who are profiting directly or indirectly from the genocide in Darfur, wants to limit the FDA from regulating food supplements, and his overall conservative stance on social issues.

[CancelMyService]

Ron Paul is really just the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich, people who are disenfranchised by the "name" candidates just latch on to the guy because he's offering something different, seemingly not stopping to consider that different =/= good.

[squall]

Well some of us don't want more of the same old politics as usual. Things could not get much worse than the way they are now.

[rahmota]

Cancel: Well first off let me say as a lifetime member of the NRA that even though I am a life member I am embaressed by some of the tactics and comments made. I think the NRA has changed a bit too much in the past few years. Part of that is a backlash to the way firearms and their owners are villified in the media and govt. Part of it is the usual power creep any group or organization goes through as they age. And believe it or not there are scorecards for all of the candidates based on not just 2nd amendment. The ILA (The legislative watch branch of the NRA) just scores the 2nd slightly higher. Go to the ACLU to see candidates/politicos ranked on other criteria.

Also like AFP said look at the tactics and statements made by many other hotbutton groups out there. The anti abortion groups are a major offender when it coems to scare tactics, antihomosexual groups are the biggest offenders as they will lie to your face and fight you when you catch them in their lie saying that the truth is the lie. Antismoking groups like stand or truth or whatever they are. Political groups on both sides. Seems like noone can run a nice clean campaign based on real life facts and truth anymore.

The more I look at all the folks running right now the more I want to find my own island nation or something. Where's MR Smith when you need him?

Squall: Oh things could get much worse, just not without a total disregard for the constitution and all this country was founded upon. Democracies are one of the most fragile political systems in existence.

[AFPheonix]

Ron Paul is really just the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich, people who are disenfranchised by the "name" candidates just latch on to the guy because he's offering something different, seemingly not stopping to consider that different =/= good.

Except that Dennis Kucinich actually has some good ideas now and again....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

He's kind of a hippy and I wonder how he's going to fund some of the stuff he wants to do, but intellectually he's mostly along my lines. Too bad he's a little garden gnome.....