Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan???

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Harry Vest

Refugee
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,455
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
I've been reading alot lately about Fred Thompson and many articles are comparing him to Ronald Reagan. I know he's an actor on Law and Order but that's not what the Reagan comparisons are about. They seem to be hinting that he's the perfect centrist candidate...an "everyman" if you will. I've seen him campaigning and it's striking me that these comparisons may be valid. Don't get me wrong I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan or his policies but I'm just a little concerned that this guy could be the ONLY person that could beat Hillary, Obama or Edwards in 2008. What do you think???
 
If there ever was a Republican 'simpleton', as mentioned in another thread here, Thompson must be the perfect example. Why do you want to be president? What is your passion? I guess I missed it.

The guy should have been in all the debates up to this point, at least showing some kind of understanding of the country and the world. Not shooting the breeze on cable and late night comedy shows.

There won't be another Reagan soon just like there won't be another Michael Jordan.
 
Kind of like Reagan, he's one of those lowkey, nondescript people you can paste all sorts of virtues on, kind of like a paper dressup doll.
 
Last edited:
Harry Vest said:
They seem to be hinting that he's the perfect centrist candidate...an "everyman" if you will.

The last thing we need is another folksy "everyman."

(See current occupant of the White House).

Competency. Intelligence. Those are the qualities I value over "charm" and movie star charisma.
 
Re: Re: Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan???

maycocksean said:

Competency. Intelligence. Those are the qualities I value over "charm" and movie star charisma.

:ohmy:

That's positively un-American!

:wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan???

martha said:


Yep. Reagan was sorely lacking the first two on your somewhat demanding list.

That's for sure.

I'm baffled that comparing Thompson to Reagan is supposed to be some kind of compliment.
 
Watch his first 30 second ad that ran the night of the last Republican debate, it was the same night he appeared on Leno.

Creepy begins to describe it.

I mean, I don't have a grudge against the guy but it just reminded me of some villain from an old Scooby Doo cartoon.
 
Does it bother anyone else that we in America seem to be getting in the habit of electing actors to high office.

It's not that an actor is inherently unworthy of the office or anything. I'm sure there are many actors who are very intelligent and have an excellent grasp of the issues and the leadership skills needed to run a state or nation. But it just doesn't seem to me that those are the characteristics we're basing our choices on.

I would suggest that there may be a world of difference between someone who can play a president on TV and one who can actually BE a president in real life.
 
It's interesting how Republicans always put down the profession of acting when attacking Democrats, yet as long as the actor is a conservative like Arnold, Ronald, or Fred, well then it's OK.

Hypocrites to the end!!
 
Last edited:
Harry Vest said:
I've been reading alot lately about Fred Thompson and many articles are comparing him to Ronald Reagan. I know he's an actor on Law and Order but that's not what the Reagan comparisons are about. They seem to be hinting that he's the perfect centrist candidate...an "everyman" if you will. I've seen him campaigning and it's striking me that these comparisons may be valid. Don't get me wrong I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan or his policies but I'm just a little concerned that this guy could be the ONLY person that could beat Hillary, Obama or Edwards in 2008. What do you think???
He's very unimpressive. He doesn't seem especially intelligent and supports all the usual right wing policies of only seeing what Iran has done wrong (and not what the US has done by overthrowing its government, supporting an 8 year war and selling biological weapons to be used against it, and then terrifying the people with an invasion so they elect that idiot Ahmadinejad), unlike a somewhat enlightened Ron Paul or Democrat Mike Gravel.
He's also disgustingly pro-Israeli. Like most Republicans, it's not about principles dictating policy but about identifying who we like and don't and then coming up with "principled" excuses to allow others to kill (Israel) and use blanket terms like "terrorist" to disqualify the rightful resistance in Palestine.

He's also very pro-Iraq war, despite being unable to think of good reasons why or admit how the US supported Saddam Hussein for years.

He's an idiotic hawk. More like George W. Bush. Arnold Schwarzenegger now seems more impressive than this lazy yahoo.
 
asr said:
It's interesting how Republicans always put down the profession of acting when attacking Democrats, yet as long as the actor is a conservative like Arnold, Ronald, or Fred, well then it's OK.

Hypocrites to the end!!
Amen!
 
[q]"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me![/q]

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/235093.aspx
 
Irvine511 said:
[q]"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me![/q]

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/235093.aspx

Ai adai.

I was hoping the era of the religo-politcal zealots had passed. Perhaps not.

Personally, I fear a Romney presidency more than a Thompson presidency.
 
Go and read the latest Rolling Stone artcile on this guy - it sums up everything quite well. It's the issue with Hunter S. Thompson on the cover.
 
The guy's a bafoon.

It's a moot point anyway, imo.

2008 is the democrats' year. This is OUR year. So far, none of the Republican candidates, not even Guliani or McCain, have jumped out as big-time favorites for the general election. The nation is sick of the conservative White House. The entire Bush presidency has served as a giant 8-year-long setup for what should be a slam dunk election for the dems. We have three candidates - Hilary, Obama, and Edwards - who are capable of winning the general election over any of the current republican candidates. Especially Hilary, given how much money her campaign has and given that she has her husband as her biggest campaigner.

The point is, this is the dems' election to lose, even significantly more so than the 04 election was. This time we have candidates far more interesting than John Kerry. If we can't win it under these circumstances, we never will.
 
ad.Conservative_Book_Club.091907.If_Democrats_Had_Any_Brains.125x600.gif
 
diamond said:

I read "Shut Up & Sing," and it was the worst book I've ever read. I found it positively hilarious. In fact, I wrote an essay in English class about how terrible it was.
 
phillyfan26 said:


I read "Shut Up & Sing," and it was the worst book I've ever read. I found it positively hilarious. In fact, I wrote an essay in English class about how terrible it was.

Ingrahamsilv.JPG


Don't worry she still loves you.

dbs
 
Back
Top Bottom