I'm With Fred

Fred Thompson, the next President of the United States, has a blog.

SINCE YOU ASKED:  Thompson defeats Gore in the general election (Gimme a "T" for Tennessee!).  Thompson, the Republican Mirror of Desire, overcame some interesting but flawed opponents for the Republican nomination; despite his strengths, Giuliani could not overcome his past positions on abortion and gun owner rights.

Gore entered the race after concluding that the extraordinary fundraising success of the Democratic Mirror of Desire, Barack Obama, signaled an irresistible "Stop Hillary" sentiment.  Since Gore had an even more impressive resume than a 46 year old Chicago politician with two years in the Senate, had been anti-war in 2002, had led on global warming, and could argue to loyalist Dems that he had already been elected once - Go with a proven winner! - he was able to scoop up the nomination as a late entrant.

And Hillary?  She can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.  But she was blown up when Barack Obama agreed to become Al Gore's VP.  This was not a deal Hillary could offer - with Bill and Barack overshadowing her she feared that she would become the answer to a trivia question, to wit, "Who the heck is actually President right now?"

The charismatically challenged Al Gore made light of his odd-couple ticket, clutching his Academy Award and telling crowds that Barack had charisma but he had Oscar.  And for a time polls suggested that Al Gore would be forever linked with Richard Nixon as a VP who lost a controversial race only to emerge victorious eight years later.

But it was not to be.  Whew.  More later...

Comments

[Rick Ballard]

Bad shrooms will do that to a person.

[Other Tom]

The very worst 'shrooms, like the very worst Martinis, fall in the "excellent" category. However, this one's too far out for me. I'm thinking Hillary can't lose the Dem nomination, and only Rudy can beat her. So I'm with Rudy.

[sbwaters]

Fred cuts through the crap... The first candidate in decades to do so. What a relief!

What people will be surprised to learn is that talking sense can strike a chord with both classical liberals and earnest conservatives. They really aren't terribly far apart on concepts that count.

Fred can win.

[clarice]

I think so, too, sbw. And it is refreshing to see someone campaign outside the box of thousands of handlers,consultants and writers and perfumists all of whom must be overpaid by endless fundraising and pandering .

[Rick Ballard]

The "bad 'shroom" reference was to the Gore scenario. It might happen outside of a psilocybin induced hallucination but I'm betting on Hamas Hillary to put away Fatah Obama.

One way or another.

I notice that Fred has JOM on his blogroll - and I'm With Fred.

[clarice]

Wow! So he does, Rick.

[sbwaters]

sbw: Fred can win.

Let me be more specific. Fred should win.

[Sue]

I'm with Fred, if Rudy fails. But I also like Romney. Dang, all I really want is anyone but Hillary. And Gore. And Obama. And any other democrat. ::grin::

[RichatUF]

Good blog, and sure enough saw JOM in the blogroll.

I'm also with TM on the actual race: Thompson v. Gore (or will that be the Supreme Court case for voting challenges in Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington)

I just don't see Hillary Clinton making it all the way through-look at the Hillary!Care campaign

RichatUF

[Pofarmer]

I don't think Hillary will make it. But Gore??

Could you imagine though, debating Gore v Thompson. That would be interesting.

[Am I A Pundit Now?]

It will indeed be sweet to watch Al Gore lose his home state twice.

[Bill in AZ]

I must be on the same shrooms as TM. Had a discussion with someone at dinner tonight and the consensus was Gore vs Thompson. Hillary will never make it, forget Obama. Gore will ride in to save the day, will be "elected" as in 2000 and choose not to serve...again.

[clarice]

HEH!
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/13/fred-pwns-dnc-blog/

[SlimGuy]

Clarice

I went back and looked and one of the best comments is not there any more by my recall.

Further, they are lamely reopening comments to let the bash trasher flood the zone.

omments go off automatically, but we'll make a special exception since the right-winger bloggers have embarrassed themselves once again. Please, feel free to comment on what a joke they've become!

(DNC Staffer here)

Posted by MichaelLink on June 13, 2007 at 10:32 AM

[Jane]

I too am a Fredhead but wouldn't be bummed if Rudy or Mitt took the mantle. Frankly I don't think Hillary can win, her negatives are so high. I do think she will get the nomination and then go down after trying to rig every voter booth in Florida and Ohio.

[sbwaters]

I'd like to see Fred designate a blogger, a trusted Fredlican, to host a kitchen cabinet blog as a place where concepts can be reduced to the salient points. An honest to goodness place for discussion of the sort in which the regulars at JOM, overlooking the trolls, engage.

As a "for instance," the result of such a discussion might encourage Fred to use two words carefully when discussing foreign policy -- and make a distinction between cultures and society. They often are used interchangeably, losing an important difference.

Cultures are the many different groups that share mutual interests, relationships, and institutions. Wherever one culture interacts with another, that interaction is society.

Cultures are exceedingly varied and moral relativism might be problematic, but interaction between cultures -- in society -- has only a handful of requirements that can be deduced from one's own experience, that indicate whether the action promotes civilization or undermines it. Those for civilization believe:
-- In peaceful problem resolution and a justice system that makes it work.
-- In free speech, because any one voice can suggest a better way to do things.
-- In reciprocity, (Don't do to someone else what you don't want done to you.) because others live life as acutely as you do, and can help you live yours.

In language both classical liberals and conservatives can understand, it quickly becomes clear what makes a friend and what makes a foe.

We are in a race for civilization that there is no guarantee civilization will win. If we choose civilization, we lift ourselves above others resigned to the law of the jungle. Fred has already begun a change in the campaign conversation that offers hope. We need to encourage it.

[Rick Ballard]

SBW,

TM reported the news that Jon Henke is working with Thompson. Henke's email address is on the QandO site. He would probably be the one to contact with your excellent idea.

[Wagster]

No, Gore didn't enter the race. (As much as yours truly would have wanted him to.) It became apparent just after Thanksgiving that Hillary's poll edge was just a result of good name recognition. As the truthism goes, Democratic primary voters want to fall in love, not fall in line as Republican voters do. As soon as the voters focused on their choices they realized that Hillary wasn't their girl. Barack Obama, The Natural of American politics, won the mantle.

As it happens, he was fortunate to have a perfect match-up in Fred Thompson. Thompson completely undercut the angles of attack on Obama. It's hard to say "he's a rock star, all style no substance" when your candidate's provenance is Hollywood (not a place, a state of mind -- one which emphatically does include Thompson's red pickup truck in Tennessee.) Furthermore, it's hard to argue that someone who was President of the Harvard Law Review, Community Organizer, Law Professor, 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 4 years in the U.S. Senate is not qualified to be President, while someone who was Prosecutor, Lobbyist, and then had 8 years in the U.S. Senate is qualified to be President. They both had priceless voices, but Barack was better-looking. He won the popular vote by 3%.

[Crust]

What about Thompson's past positions on abortion? He used to be pro-choice and supported Roe v. Wade. (He did always oppose federal funding of abortions which used to be the main legislative abortion issue, so he still got decent ratings from pro-life organizations.)

Support for Roe v. Wade is a double whammy as both an anti-federalist and pro-choice position. Thompson told Hannity that a staffer may have filled in a questionnaire indicating support for Roe v. Wade. But that's not the only record. In a 1993 interview with a Tennessee newspaper, Thompson said that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion." (link costs $3, for free link with just the key quote, here's TPM)

[Rick Ballard]

"What about Thompson's past positions on abortion?"

What about it? There isn't a single Republican candidate who can claim pure conservative credentials. Big deal.

I'm interested in the type of judges he'll appoint - dash off and find evidence that he would appoint a Souter and we'll chat.

[JJ]

I like the Mirror of Desire for Fred and Obama. Isn't that true!

So, what does that make Harry Reid in Potter World? Snape?

[PatrickR]

'Could you imagine though, debating Gore v Thompson.'

Tipper vs Jeri?

[JJ]

OT, but Durham in Wonderland did an incredible job of live-blogging the review hearings of the legal work of Nifong.

May the hearings serve as a standard for clearing up sloppy legal work!

Then I want to see lawmakers pass legislation setting legal fees at $65 max! and all will be right with the nation! And pigs wilt fly.

[Sue]

while someone who was Prosecutor, Lobbyist, and then had 8 years in the U.S. Senate is qualified to be President.

Yeah. On paper, Ronald Reagan shouldn't have won either. And Bush didn't have a prayer. Oh well.

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

Fred! Fred! Fred!

[RichatUF]

It seems oppositon research and boiler rooms are getting spun up. 2008 is going to an ugly election

Another idea might be to build a network for digg-[DNS] (though those guys would probably ban everyone they find). Also has Gingrich been giving Thompson some advice, because some of what Thompson has been saying sounds fimiliar.

RichatUF

[Crust]

Rick Ballard:

"What about Thompson's past positions on abortion?" What about it?

I was reacting to TM comparing Giuliani's liabilities compared to Thompson:

Giuliani could not overcome his past positions on abortion...

Present position I could see (obviously). And Giuliani has changed his position mildly. But not like Thompson, going from pro-choice to pro-life. And as I said, Thompson's prior support for Roe v. Wade undercuts his federalism as "lodestar" bit.

[Tom Maguire]

I notice that Fred has JOM on his blogroll

I did not notice that, but I am tickled. I have always been a Jon Henke fan, so that may be it.

Or, having a candidate who is a Plamaniac may be a factor as well.

[clarice]

You're too modest, TM. This is the best commentary type blog in the world,

[Harry Arthur]

On paper, Ronald Reagan shouldn't have won either.

Sue, a couple of terms as a very popular governor of California didn't qualify RR for the presidency? There are very few countries in the world with the challenges and resources managed by the Gov of California. And the governor in California is a real governor, not a figurehead as is the governor of Texas.