Fred the Great?

A few months back I was chatting about the Obama campaign with a liberal journalist who'd been reporting a profile of Sen. John Edwards. For weeks he'd been following Edwards around, meeting people who fell for him in 2004 and still had his back, or people who didn't quite trust Bill Clinton's wife to lead their party into the brightness of tomorrow. They were buzzing about Edwards. And then... Obama put the word out that he might run. Instantly, liberal activists stopped caring about Edwards and starting talking about Obama. It happened so fast that at an AFL-CIO event where Edwards was receiving an award, all the chatter in the audience was about the 18-month senator from Illinois.

Which brings us to Fred Thompson. The political operator-turned-actor-turned-political-operator-again is being courted by bloggers and some mysterious online conservatives to run for president, so disappointed are they in the choices so far. Instapundit points us to the Knoxville News Sentinel, where blogger Michael Silence has been obsessing over the Thompson possibility. I surfed on over to Fred08 to understand the reasons for the Thompson boomlet:

Fred Thompson is a true American statesman and has the experience that matters.

Fred is a real conservative. From tax cuts, to cleaning up government, to his vital role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Fred Thompson has a record of fighting for conservative values.

Fred has the knowledge and expertise on the issues that matter most in today's world.

Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, has the ability to bring conservative principles to the Oval Office, communicate to Americans, and bring our Nation together.

That's... uh, that's it? Let's see how he checks out on "the issues that matter." Pros:

Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)

Good stuff, but not much different than the rest of the GOP field. Cons:

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

It's starting to sound like he's... a slightly more liberal version of John McCain. We already have a John McCain in the race. What does Thompson bring to the table? Ah, yes: Folksy homespun wisdom. Like this:

I think I get it now: Thompson is a dead-ender on Iraq who hasn't been tarred by the last couple years of debates - he voted for the thing and got out of DC. It makes sense that he's taking activists' attention away from their lame crop of candidates, even though one of them (Rudy) outpolls the Democratic field. He can ride back from over the horizon and resell the war, only do it like, way better than the other guys are doing it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

  • ||

    Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.

  • Guy Montag||

    As soon as I end my boycott you pounce on MY candidate! ACK!

    Of course Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999) would be my favorite vote of his :)

    For those who will pipe up and toss the over-used accusation that he "did nothing" in the Senate, I have two words for you: Lorrie Morgan.

  • ||

    In his commercial he asks what the 9/11 hijackers had done to us before taking out the WTC. If I recall correctly, (1) they bombed the WTC, (2) they bombed a baracks and killed 19 US servicemen, (3) they bombed the Cole, (4) and they bombed embassies in Kenya, Tanzania and Sudan.

    So we can add Fred Thompson to the list of disingenuous pricks on the campaign trail.

  • ||

    Fred has the knowledge and expertise on the issues that matter most in today's world.



    Going head to head with Sam Waterston?

  • ||

    Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

    How is this a con? Only a big-government, progressive New-Dealer, worship-at-the-atrophied-feet-of-FDR, Shill for the Democrats could possibly deem it so.

  • I. Self. Divine.||

    I DO love me some Law and Order...

  • ||

    Warren: somehow I think that the politicians in office when the New Deal passed weren't too keen on gay rights. I think the rationale behind it being a "con" is that government is least intrusive when it is expanding rights. I could be wrong on that though.

  • ||

    How can there be no John McClane references on this thread?

  • ||

    Wingnuts love Thompson b/c he's an actor like Ronald what's-his-face...

  • Guy Montag||

    somehow I think that the politicians in office when the New Deal passed weren't too keen on gay rights.

    That's probably because lesbian porn was not yet widly available until Al Gore invented the internet while he was in Vietnam. It was all being hoarded by J. Edgar Hoover.

  • ||

    Hey, his southern brand of folksy, homespun wisdom got him elected DA in Manhattan.

  • ||

    If Romney, Obama, and Thompson became the three top contenders, I'd be pretty damn excited just because we'd have three people who have mastered the English language.

    Going head to head with Sam Waterston?

    Well, he'd win all the debates because whenever the other candidate made some righteous but valid claim criticism, he'd be able to ask a rhetorical question that would make the other guy's position seem suddenly morally ambivalent.

  • VM||

    Admiral - enough sonar buoys to walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting one's feet wet?
    (great reference)

    He was also fantastic in "No Way Out"!

  • Guy Montag||

    VM,

    He almost killed Bruce Willis at Christmas time too!

    (we can still mention Christmas here, can't we?)

  • VM||

    Awesome!

    (I think we're okay, since Dan T isn't watching. I'll put on my +5 Burqua of deflection just in case)

  • ||

    a dead-ender on Iraq

    Pure David Weigel, and far too predictable.

  • ||

    Breaking News!

    Fred Thompson not a libertarian!

  • ||

    aaron: your post is funnier than I realized.

  • ||

    Pure David Weigel, and far too predictable.

    Now it's up to you, Shelby, but you might consider cuttin' the kid a little slack.

  • ||

    I've always been curious about Fred Thompson. When he was elected senator, he was going to kick Bill Clinton's ass investigating the 2004 election. Remember his claims that the Chinese government donated to the Clinton campaign? Those charges went nowhere, and Thompson slipped out of Washington after a single term. I don't think he impressed the Republican establishment, and that's why he left.

    The fact that he's being talked up at all suggests that some Republicans are beginning to realize that the Rudy/Mitt/John show is going to be a disaster. The Republican Party is the party of the South these days, and none of these dudes know shit about grits.

  • ||

    "Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds."

    Wouldn't it be better for national security if we waited until we actually *need* it? Are ships being kept in port and planes kept on the ground due to fuel scarcity? No? Is that even in the offing? No? Then we can wait.

    And does it really serve the purposes of national security if it just goes on sale on the open market?

    Seems like it would serve national security better if ANWR were sitting on top of the ANPR - a national Petroleum Reserve.

  • ||

    "Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation"

    If this is in the private sector, then I don't have a problem with it. If he's for the GOVERNMENT hating on gays, then there's a problem.

  • Guy Montag||

    Alan Vanneman,

    Thompson slipped out of Washington after a single term

    Not quite:


    elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003

  • Guy Montag||

    Oh yea, there is that little matter of his daughter dying of cancer that had something to do with his "slipping out" of DC after one term. He even said during his campaigns that he was not going to be a perminant Senator. Something like 2 full terms at the most, IIRC.

  • Baylen||

    That kid spent ten months in traction, another year learning to walk again. Did his fourth year from the hospital. Now it's up to you, Charlie, but you might consider cuttin' the kid a little slack.

  • ||

    And he's got a killer voice. I can just see his debate opponents demanding voice processing software to make themselves sound better.

  • ||

    ....somehow I think that the politicians in office when the New Deal passed weren't too keen on gay rights. - Lamar



    Well, they left Eleanor the hell alone.

    Seriously, I second andy's comment.

    Fred Dalton has a secret weapon: he's filled in for Paul.......................Harvey. That's gotta help in red state primaries.

    If Thompson faced Hillary, we'd have two candidates who made their bones on the Congressional investigation staffs during the Watergate scandal.

    Good Day!

    Kevin

  • Guy Montag||

    And he doesn't speak with an accent. Does not have to fake the lack of a funny accent like Hillary tried doing in Selma, AL.

  • ||

    The anti-discrimination bill proposed to forbid the federal government from discriminating because of sexual orientation. It had nothing to do with the private sector.

    If you want department directors in the GSA to be able to fire the employees they supervise for being gay, Fred Thompson is your man. Well, actually, every candidate running for the Republican nomination, except maybe Guiliani, is your man.

  • ||

    "Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)"

    Yeah, I don't get that. David, since when do libertarians oppose the freedom of association? Or was this strictly about Gov't jobs?

  • ||

    Joe,

    You just answered my question! Should've waited about a minute...

  • ||

    hooray, the private sector is still allowed to declare at least one group of people subhuman.

    the system works!

    pity it's too late for those folks victimized by the civil rights act. that's the real injustice.

  • ||

    Mr. Steven Crane,

    "hooray, the private sector is still allowed to declare at least one group of people subhuman."

    Good point! The nerve of private citizens expressing a wrong opinion! Should be stopped I say... Why, just the other day, I met a guy that believed in some different set of values than myself. What's he doing walking the streets?

  • Guy Montag||

    Yea, kill the intolerant.

  • ||

    "Yea, kill the intolerant."

    Oh, no, no. You can't touch somebody for his religious or political beliefs. Your right to be an intolerant bigot is protected by every appendage and level of our government.

    Unlike being gay.

  • Guy Montag||

    joe,

    Happyness is right there at the beginning of the Constitution. Did you skip the beginning or something?

  • LarryA||

    According to UPI Edwards has pulled out of a Nevada Democratic debate because it's sponsored by Fox News.

    Edwards pulls out of Fox debate
    CARSON CITY, Nev., March 8 (UPI) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards announced he will not participate in the Nevada Democratic Party's August debate sponsored by Fox News.
    Edwards' announcement followed an outcry from liberal groups over the choice of Fox to host the event, The Washington Post reported Thursday. The groups claim Fox is biased towards conservatives and is a poor choice to sponsor a Democratic event.


    http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/Top_News/Edwards_pulls_out_of_Fox_debate/20070308-120410-5068r/

  • LarryA||

    Happyness is right there at the beginning of the Constitution. Did you skip the beginning or something?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Don't see "happiness." It's not anywhere in the Constitution.

    You might mean the "pursuit of happiness," but that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution.

  • ||

    Joe,

    What are you talking about? Who said anything about limiting the rights of gay people?

  • Guy Montag||

    LarryA,

    Yea, that one. You can be so technical sometimes :)

  • ||

    kohlrabi,

    I'm talking about Guy's faux-persecution complex, from his 1:51 post. Apparently, getting fired from your job for something that isn't any of your boss's damn business is nothing compared to someone saying it's wrong to discriminate against gay people.

  • Guy Montag||

    kohlrabi,

    joe needs his meds. please remind him for me?

  • ||

    remember you saw it here first: the new Southern Baptist Association slogan for PSA's about sexual orientation

    "Homosexuality, the other freedom of choice."

  • VM||

    WTF.

    WTF.

    fucking.homophobic.assholes.

  • ||

    Joe,

    I believe Guy's comment was referring to Crane's comment that implied that the private sector should not be 'allowed' to declare people subhuman. Said declaration violates no man's rights. The boss who would do that would undoubtedly be a tool, so are guys that cheat at poker or don't hold doors for old ladies.

    Anyway, all this is really moot being that the law was not about the private sector.

  • ||

    Uh, yeah, GUY MONTAG. I'm the crazy one.

  • ||

    VM,

    Who?

  • ||

    VM,

    I hope you aren't referring to me. I'd defend a private sector boss's right to not hire anyone, Christian, African, Jewish, Bohemian, Homosexual, Libertarian, clarinetist, whatever.

  • VM||

    BIGOTRY is fucking wrong.

    don't wanna work with gays, you're free and clear

    fuck you.

  • ||

    I've got nothing against clarinetists as people. It's just their behavior I consider disgusting.

    It's my religion, you see. We're taught that woodwindy is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the squeaky, noodly music.

  • ||

    VM,

    F*** me? Why? Oy, good day to you, too, then.

    Bigotry is wrong, I agree. Who are you arguing against? Or should all things wrong be criminal offenses?

  • ||

    It is difficult, but because of my faith I do love Squidward

  • ||

    Joe,

    I often have to ask, "How could you put your mouth on a single reed?? It's unnatural! If you don't like double reeds, you don't like God."

  • VM||

    fucking bigots.

  • Guy Montag||

    kohlrabi,

    You forgot to tell him didn't you?

    In other news, mediageek informs us: The Washington DC circuit panel has ruled that the gun control laws in DC violate the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens.

    Looks like Fred's position is already beating Rudy's in the District.

  • ||

    It doesnt matter what the gun laws are in D.C. Robbery and rape will continue unfilibustered.

  • Guy Montag||

    But won't it be easier to shoot the intolerant?

  • ||

    This is America. The right to intolerance and bigotry is in the constitution. Shooting dumbasses, unfortunatley, is not.

  • Guy Montag||

    brotherben,

    Well, I was for joe until he threw a fit about my agreeing with him, so now I am with you brother.

    joe, take your meds.

  • ||

    'I often have to ask, "How could you put your mouth on a single reed?? It's unnatural! If you don't like double reeds, you don't like God."'

    Look, I'm not naturally attracted to the clarinet, ok? It's only when I snort crystal meth with a professional clarinetist that I pay to go into a hotel room with me that the "acting out" behavior occurs.

    Thankfully, after fifteen minutes of trombonial therapy and prayer, I am now 100% brass. I've been healed! Hallelujia!

  • Guy Montag||

    Thankfully, after fifteen minutes of trombonial therapy and prayer, I am now 100% brass. I've been healed! Hallelujia!

    See? If you would just pay more attention to your therapy then we would not have all of these episodes like in the thread above.

    Now help your buddy VM get better.

  • ||

    I don't care what others say joe. That 3:52 redeems all your sins.

  • Samm||

    Bigot??

    Huh?

  • LarryA||

    BIGOTRY is fucking wrong.

    Agreed. But should it be illegal?

    There are laws against discrimination (treating someone badly) but not against bigotry (thinking bad about someone). As in the article you cited, "the handbook stated: 'Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us.'" So "Buonanno shared his concerns about the statement with his immediate supervisor and informed him that he had no problem declaring he would not discriminate against or harass people who were different from him, including homosexuals, but he could not sign the statement required by AT&T because it contradicted his sincerely held religious beliefs."

    I think Buonnano's beliefs are wrong, but I don't think he should be punished for them until he actually violates someone's rights.

    The time I was fired because I was the wrong gender I thought about fighting it. But the job didn't pay that well, and I didn't want to work for the person who fired me anyway. Likewise the time someone refused to hire me because I wasn't Christian enough.

    Life is too short to teach pigs to sing.

  • ||

    Life is too short to teach pigs to sing.

    Apparently not.

  • Guy Montag||

    I really bust a gut when the phrase "people different than you" is used. You know, on that normal, sane person way that we realize that everybody is unique, thus they are all different in some manner.

    The term is used most frequently so that some jack-bootied overseer can snipe and question the judgement of any person in their charge in whatever subjective manner that they like.

    Somehow, these are the same folks who jabber against "thought crimes" and that is exactly what they advocate.

    Amazing, huh?

  • edna||

    you shouldn't play the clarinet unless your name is barney bigard. you shouldn't play the oboe unless your name is... wait a minute, nobody should play the oboe. crush them with any concertinas you can find. listen for the splintering sound. the world will thank you.

  • ||

    I personally have a thing for the women with the big bassoons.

  • ||

    John H,

    "Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds."

    Wouldn't it be better for national security if we waited until we actually *need* it? Are ships being kept in port and planes kept on the ground due to fuel scarcity? No? Is that even in the offing? No? Then we can wait.

    And does it really serve the purposes of national security if it just goes on sale on the open market?..."

    Apparently you have some learning to do about libertarianism. You see, nothing's more outrageous than some evil statist sinning against the sacred Free Market, by creating some despicable, immoral regulation to, for example, safeguard the environment or ensure your children can breathe clean air (they have no such right).

    On the other hand, we must observe the Libertarian tenet that Big Business has a constitutional right to pollute as much as they want. Don't believe any of this nonsense about so-called "pollution," global warming, or oil running out. Besides economics is the only true science, unlike some dumb statist geologist or physicist. All will be well if you have faith and trust in the power of the Free Market, amen.

  • ||

    thom, may I politely ask you to fill all the empty space in your body? Libertarians recognize pollution needs to be controlled, in at least two ways. The first is when person A dumps waste on Person B or his property. That's a tort, at the least, and could even be assault. The second is when someone dumps waste on the commons. Now, we do like to shrink us some commons, and widen the parameters of private property, but e have never been comfortable with the idea that the state could extinguish the right not to be bothered by pollution from your neighbors as a necessity of doing business.

    I won't bother arguing avout anthropogenic global termperature increases. It is an article of religious faith to you folks, who will brook no skepticism on the subject.

    Sadly, the women with the Big Bassoons don't go for me. They like the hautboys.

    Kevin

  • ||

    What exactly is a dead-ender?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement