It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fred Thompson For President!!!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I think he is an attractive candidate, but from what I hear I'm not sure if he's really up for an almost two-year long campaign which seemt to be in store for anyone running now.

I hope he would run though, I think he'd add some depth to our bench.




posted on May, 2 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Fred was on Hannity and Colmes last night...

Fred on Fox

I think he's leaning towards a run...



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I totally missed the H&C w/Thompson. I wanted to watch it, but missed it. I can't even get the video to play. Would you be interested in giving a brief summary of how it went?



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjshobbes
Would you be interested in giving a brief summary of how it went?


I found a transcript...transcript from interview

It's getting closer to go time and he still answers the questions he is asked. Who does he think he is?
)



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Thanks for the link. (I found it the right after you posted it.) I don't know why I can't get the video to work. I enjoy watching him speak. So I went to YouTube...and found lots of good stuff, including the Hannnity interview. I'd post some links here but it would be a whole lot easier for anybody to go there and put his name in the search engine. I'd have to spend a few days just trying to narrow it all down and pick the best videos to post. The man is a genius. It would be awesome to watch him beat the skirt off of Hillary in the run for Prez.



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I agree. (Until Hilary's skirt comes off- then I'm running away!)

When you can HEAR the guy compare himself to "a war-horse" it's more effective then the transcript.

At ABCRadio.com Fred has a short blog. It'll be worth the read to me so I bookmarked it. Here is todays:

abcradio.com...



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Ooh yeah.
He's the man. Thanks for the link, it was a good read. If he were to say stuff like that on Letterman/Leno, he'd be a shoe-in. That's the kind of stuff that'll get him points with elephants, donkeys, and every body in between.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I think you're right, Leno would be perfect for him. He really lets it hang out during these interviews and I think that Late Night audience (and everyone else) will love his candor and personality.

He's made millions acting like himself because no one else could pull it off. I think that's huge...



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ala Ross Perot. Why not? He's Hollywood. Might as well throw it to Billary, like he's been paid to do.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I don't think the Indy thing could work for him. I think that label scares the ignorant into thinking there's something wrong with that person because they're not red or blue.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I'm of a different mind bj. I think indy is EXACTLY what people that fancy themselves smart want to vote for. After all, the multi-billion dollar Republican think tank machine has been selling apathy for years, telling people their vote doesn't matter. Why not?



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I understand where you're coming from. I think Fred could out do what Ross did as an independant. It's just that for some reason, as an independant, I honestly don't feel as though anybody could win a presidential election. Maybe I could be, no pun intended, a little off base with that. I just think Fred could do better with an (R) next to his name.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Are you Republicans and conservatives that desperate as to dredge up a RETIRED Senator and TV actor, full of the same old tired Republican and conservative "ideas" to run for President or are you just looking for someone who won't lose too badly, so as to save face?

RR Newt the Gingrich doesn't have a snowball's chance is hell of winning... he only appeals to the lunatic fringe (which is probably why you like him) and the only other Republican wannabe thats running with more baggage is Rudy Gulliani and he doesn't stand a chance either. The funnymentalists aren't going to embrace him and he has no ideas other than to wave the terrorist flag once again and bush minor has run that one into the ground.

Face it you guys are going down next year and you are going to down hard... and you deserve to lose. You've done it to yourselves with your heavy handed grab for total power. Excuse me while i wipe away my crocodile tears.


[edit on 5-5-2007 by grover]



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Are you Republicans and conservatives that desperate as to dredge up a RETIRED Senator and TV actor, full of the same old tired Republican and conservative "ideas" to run for President or are you just looking for someone who won't lose too badly, so as to save face?

Ouch. And him being RETIRED means what? Is that bad? I guess after you RETIRE you what, wear diapers and fart in the corner until you die? And being an actor...So what? I thought you people liked your actors. Or are actors only cool if they set a fine 'liberal' example, like Sean Penn? Or maybe John Kerry? (Oops, sorry he only puts on an act)



Originally posted by grover
RR Newt the Gingrich doesn't have a snowball's chance is hell of winning... he only appeals to the lunatic fringe (which is probably why you like him) and the only other Republican wannabe thats running with more baggage is Rudy Gulliani and he doesn't stand a chance either. The funnymentalists aren't going to embrace him and he has no ideas other than to wave the terrorist flag once again and bush minor has run that one into the ground.

Read the thread title again. It goes something like this: "Fred Thompson for President!!!".




Originally posted by grover
Face it you guys are going down next year and you are going to down hard... and you deserve to lose. You've done it to yourselves with your heavy handed grab for total power. Excuse me while i wipe away my crocodile tears.



The Democraps couldn't even put up a viable candidate to beat our current, so called "dumb", president. And personally, I think Fred Thompson would smoke Bush. Who's on your team? Hillary? Obama? Please. John Edwards, the ambulance chaser, would have to sue his way in. Biden? Nope. Joe Lieberman would be the only decent ammo from the Dark Side. Oh wait, he defected. It's too bad that Gore is busy with Greenpiece. He'd be entertaining to watch again.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I'm still rooting for Ron Paul.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I never said I was happy with the current crap of Democratic candidates because I am not.

I stressed retired because the current crap of Republican candidates are so lame that they make the Democratic ones look vibrant, and to find somebody worth running some Republicans feel the need to draft someone who abandoned political office years ago.

Doesn't change the fact that you Republicans have run out of ideas which is why you hide behind the flag and make such a noise about family values and play the terrorist card every chance you can; to obscure the issues because, at any real debate based on ideas, you lose.

Personally I am not enamored with celebrity and could care less whether a candidate is one or not.... I am interested in their ideas and whether they can govern or not.

Also in case you failed to notice bush minor did not win in 2000, he was given the office by the Supreme Court, against all precedent and as for 2004 there is strong evidence crucial votes were rigged.

I don't know about you but I am sick and tired of having to chose between lame and lamer each election cycle no matter which party... its all the same... a rush towards mediocrity.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by grover]



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I stressed retired because the current crap of Republican candidates are so lame that they make the Democratic ones look vibrant, and to find somebody worth running some Republicans feel the need to draft someone who abandoned political office years ago.

Fred is for term limits. He doesn't believe, nor do I, that a big chunk of these clowns in office today should be able to spend the rest of their lives in office. It's not an abndonment. If we had term limits, we'd probably have less corruption and less power greedy elitist snobs living off our taxes and telling how to live, ie. Ted Kennedy.



Originally posted by grover
Doesn't change the fact that you Republicans have run out of ideas which is why you hide behind the flag and make such a noise about family values and play the terrorist card every chance you can; to obscure the issues because, at any real debate based on ideas, you lose.

Do you really believe that honest debates actually happen? Did you watch any of them in '04? Remember John Kerry?: "I have the answers in my website, if you just go there you'll see where I stand." What the hell is that?


Originally posted by grover
Personally I am not enamored with celebrity and could care less whether a candidate is one or not.... I am interested in their ideas and whether they can govern or not

I agree 100%.
.

Originally posted by grover
Also in case you failed to notice bush minor did not win in 2000, he was given the office by the Supreme Court, against all precedent and as for 2004 there is strong evidence crucial votes were rigged.

How well do you think Al Gore would've done had he won? We'd probably be well on our way to Socialism. We would have been called, "The United States of Entitlements." We'd bow to the new world power of the United Nations headed by Bill Clinton. We'd be the new Western Europe. Not to mention, we'd still be trying to talk terrorists into being nice to us if we stop doing what they don't like. Our military would be the new Boy Scouts. (All 2 dozen of'em)


Originally posted by grover
I don't know about you but I am sick and tired of having to chose between lame and lamer each election cycle no matter which party... its all the same... a rush towards mediocrity.

I with you here. This gets back to the whole "term limits" thing for me.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I'm still rooting for Ron Paul.

He's my next choice. After that, I think we're screwed.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Fred's leaving Law & Order.

According to NBC's president, who claims no inside knowledege of Fred Thompsons political plans, Fred won't be back next year. Another door opening...

No more L&O



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   


posted by bjshobbes

I hear [Fred Thompson] is gonna throw his hat in the ring. I hope he does. He's well spoken, and well versed in our legal system, as well as the inner workings of the Senate. He'd make Bush look like the idiot so many people believe him to be. His demeanor would command the respect of the entire world. I believe he could bring this country together better than Reagan ever thought possible. Hillary and Obama are a joke compared to Fred. Who wouldn't vote for this guy? [Edited by Don W]



I do not believe Fred Thompson - or Ron Paul - are serious candidates for the presidential nomination of their party. I might add New Gingrich into that group, except that he actually admits he is “running” to be a stand-by or default candidate. In case the GOP convention dead-locks. Fallback.

Justin Oldham has expressed doubts on other threads. He ads that the externals are not there in the case of any of these wanna-be’s. To be a serious candidate - of either party - they’d need at a minimum a rudimentary organization in each of the 28 Red states from 2004 for GOPs. A similarly placed Dem candidate would need to be in the 22 Blue states + DC. The top 3 candidates in each party have such organizations already in place in all 50 states plus DC. Some large and some small.

So what are the motives of Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich? Paul is young enough he can be laying the foundation for a real race in ‘12 or even ‘16. Fred and Newt are too old to seriously look past ‘08. If a Dem wins in ‘08, then the next “good” year for a GOP hopeful would be ‘16. Fred and Newt would probably be in Arlington by then. Which leaves Ron Paul today who can look that far ahead.

A successful candidate must have the “fire in the belly” that sustains them 24/7 for 365 days a year. They are driven. They cannot hide that impulse to be the Top Banana. They have a mission. They have solutions we cannot live without. Solutions sometimes looking for a problem. Note: the general election day of 2008 is 1 year, 4 months and 19 days away. 505 days. Based on today being May 15, 2007.

I have no idea how much money running a campaign requires. When traveling the candidate would stay over with local R&Fs and house the staff in nearby hotels or motels. I can’t image traveling with fewer than 5 people. Airline tickets, lodging, food, rent a cars, and meeting rooms must cost several 1000s of dollars every day. I do not believe Ron Paul or Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich have any thing like this in place. Hence, as Justin Oldham says, they are not serious. Not for ‘08.

Recall Ross Perot in 1992. He was driven. He believed he had a mission and he was able to finance it himself. In rough numbers, I believe he spent about $15 million while Bush41 and Clinton spent about $75 million each. In today dollars, that would require 4X or 5X. Obama raised $26 m. in the first quarter and Romney raised $24 m. in the same time. Running a serious race is big time big money. Can Fred or Ron (or Newt) come close?

[edit on 5/15/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join