Thread: Can Fred Thompson rescue Republicans in 2008?

Can Fred Thompson rescue Republicans in 2008?

John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Sun May 6, 11:43 AM ET



NEWPORT BEACH, California (Reuters) - It could be the defining role of Fred Thompson's varied career -- the reluctant politician who saves a foundering party, restores its conservative principles and keeps it in the White House.

For Thompson, the drama is real enough, even if the final act is uncertain. The former Tennessee senator, Watergate counsel and star of films like "The Hunt for Red October," has been exploring a potential 2008 Republican presidential run and is expected to make his decision known soon.

Thompson's possible candidacy, fueled by conservative dissatisfaction with the current crop of Republican candidates, has generated intense grass-roots interest and curiosity.

Thompson, who plays a district attorney on NBC's "Law and Order," already places third among Republicans in most polls, behind former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) but ahead of eight other candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

His national celebrity, folksy Southern demeanor and conservative views could be an attractive combination for Republicans demoralized by November's election losses and President George W. Bush's plunging popularity.

"From a conservative Republican point of view, all of the current candidates are lacking something. People think Fred Thompson can be the guy to fill that void," said Scott Graves, editor of Red County magazine in conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles.

At a Friday night speech to the Lincoln Club, a prominent Republican group in Orange County, Thompson frequently invoked former President Ronald Reagan as he pledged loyalty to bedrock conservative principles of lower taxes and smaller government.

"So many of our problems seem to be getting larger and so many of our politicians seem to be getting smaller," he said the day after the 10 Republican contenders met in their first debate just down the road at Reagan's presidential library in Simi Valley.

STRONGER BORDERS

Thompson, an opponent of abortion and gun control and a supporter of the Iraq war, sprinkled stories of his days in Hollywood into a speech calling for a decentralized federal government, stronger borders and reduced barriers to trade.

Larry Smith, owner of a Newport Beach investment firm, said Thompson's ability to speak simply and directly about issues could be what Republicans need after six years of Bush.

"I think communication has been a real problem for the Republican Party," Smith said. "We need a better communicator and he has a unique and straightforward way of talking."

Thompson, 64, has reached out for advice as he nears a decision on running, meeting with members of Congress last month and conferring with fellow Tennessee Republicans like former Sens. Bill Frist and Howard Baker.

He also recently disclosed for the first time that he suffers from lymphoma but it is in remission.

Thompson was Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate committee in the early 1970s before launching his acting career. He served eight years in the Senate but declined to run again in 2002.

If he does enter the presidential race, he will be well behind his rivals in fund raising and organization. But his celebrity will help him raise money and advisers are exploring ways to use the Internet to allow Thompson, an avid blogger on conservative sites, to communicate directly with voters.

Thompson has two small children with his second wife and has made it clear he does not relish the pace of campaigning.

"He knows he has to do it differently and he wants to do it differently," Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said of a possible bid. "He has no interest in running a traditional campaign."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also is considering a late entry in the race and will make a decision in September. Once in, however, either candidate is likely to find the going tough.

"'Almost' candidates always look better than real candidates until the moment they become real candidates," said Republican consultant Dan Schnur. "You always want what you don't have."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070506/pl_ ... hompson_dc

Fred Thompson On Illegal Immigration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLFfTd2l44

"I think communication has been a real problem for the Republican Party," Smith said. "We need a better communicator and he has a unique and straightforward way of talking."
I think communication has been nonexistent with that blathering idiot Bush. He has destroyed the Republican Party and become an international joke.

Fred Thompson is member of the CFR and I don't care to talk about this guy. Let him earn his living as the actor he is. We don't need his kind in power.

He support a path to legalization for criminal aliens! Actually, he didn't saying anything in the video that we don't already know and he certainly didn't offer any solutions.

I agree with Rockfish, he should stick to acting.

Hillary Clinton on Immigration
Democratic Jr Senator (NY)




Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
Voting YES establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. The bill:
Increases border security and enforcement
Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa) with a three-year admission and one additional three-year extension; and issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children;
Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien, and family, for aliens who have been in the US and employed for five years.
Proponents of the bill say:
Our immigration system is broken and needs to be repaired. This bill is a strong step in the right direction. We need to protect our borders and look out for American workers, and we also need a responsible way to meet the need for temporary workers, particularly in the agricultural area, where they represent about 70 percent of the U.S. agricultural workforce, with a path to earned citizenship for hard-working, law abiding temporary workers. This bill, the product of bipartisan compromise, takes a commonsense approach to all of these issues.
Opponents of the bill say:
Our country has been built by immigrants. But the reason we have had quotas for immigration is the world has progressed in different parts of this globe at a very different rate. In some countries, the economies have lagged far behind.
There are jobs available in this country with rates of pay that are far in excess of those of Third World countries. We have on our southern border people who aspire to come to this country. In order to protect our way of life and our standard of living and to protect jobs, we have quotas.
Reference: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act; Bill S. 2611 ; vote number 2006-157 on May 25, 2006

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security. Text of amendment:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
Reference: Preclusion of Social Security Credits; Bill S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611 ; vote number 2006-130 on May 18, 2006

Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act would prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants ("Guest Workers") from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. Voting YEA on the motion to table (which would kill the amendment) indicates supporting a path to citizenship for guest workers. Voting NAY on the motion indicates opposing any path to citizenship. The amendment says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien having nonimmigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status.''
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform Act purports to create two different paths to citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work.
We have given the somewhat misleading name of ''guest worker'' to the so-called future flow. A guest is not ordinarily defined as someone who moves in with you and never leaves.
These so-called guest workers could work here up to 6 years, after which they then apply for a green card. They then get on the path to American citizenship 5 years later.
It is important for us to debate this issue honestly. The amendment simply makes the point that a guest worker ought to be temporary.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years would be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise.
We have examples today in Europe of having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society. No hope, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillar ... ration.htm

Stick to Acting is right.
We don't need any more of his kind in power.
They say one thing and do another.

Fred Thompson's vote history:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &retired=1
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=743

Actions speak louder than words.....especially from a well trained actor.