Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at http://www.fred08.com . I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Please help Fred win in 2008:
https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

I read Hewitt all the time, I think his argument is more that Romney, more than any other candidate, can hold together the coalition of three major axis in the GOP, social, economic, and national security conservatives.

Thompson could have done it, but he just has no mojo. Mediocre Iowa showing, dreadful NH showing, 1%? I know you can not win NH and win the election, but 1%?

In terms of being a Regan conservative, my step father in law said “all the republican candidates become pro life when they run for president, Bush [the older] did it and so did Regan.” He’s old enough to remember, I’m not. He also pointed out that Regan ran a union and used to be a Dem (I know if none of this is true.)

What makes one a Regan republican? Does a strict desire to return to Regan-Bush years qualify? Let’s see, exorbitant failed military systems. Support for nitwit dictators who would later need to be removed, buckling at the Lebanese conflict, and granting amnesty. Bush I’s promise to not raise taxes, and then raising them. On and on. Regan was a great leader, but I rather like today better than then, so I agree with Romney - no need to return to Regan/Bush. My father has always been an independent, as I suspect most conservatives in MA are, and was the only person in my mom’s [large 2nd generation Irish Catholic] family voting for Regan. That Romney was an independent then, that his political views have changed since entering politics, and that he responded poorly to a rhetorical game Kennedy played with him in his first campaign don’t support your hypothesis.

What you need to establish is:

1. Romney generally is not economically conservative, relative to the field.

2. Is not socially conservative.

3. Is not in favor of strong national defense.

4. OR that he’d be incompetent as an executive along one or more of those goals.

His policy in MA is probably a mixed bag, b/c of the health care. But I live in the state, and the economy and taxation situation got much better. Beyond the actual results, he actually broke some of the scoleric bureaucratic institutions that run the state, independent of the electorate (various appointed commissions, that for example were in charge of the big dig oversite, etc.)

His social record was strong, he made a compromise not to try and roll back any abortion laws when elected, but did prevent expansion on several fronts. He fought hard against judicial imposition of gay marriage, and even after he was done helped to pressure the legislature. I’m ambivalent to gay marriage if passed by the legislature, but appreciate the effort for rule of law. And he pushed against the legislature on other issues. IMO abortion is not the only social issue, just like taxes is not the only economic one. I do believe he’d appoint judges conservatives would be happy with, but must admit that’s mostly guess on my part. (And generally no one knows where R appointees will end up 30 years down the road.)

On foreign policy Mitt is the hardest to predict, but I like his command of the issues and data at hand, and his quest for knowledge on the subject (allegedly prolific reader in this area.)

Based on various executive experience - I’ll assume he can be at least above average in the get it done department, and I assume he’ll bring in a veep with some legislative background to help out that arena.

Now as for the character assassination I see here and at crank, I don’t know what to make of it. I see a guy who’s apparently lived his personal life above the standards that most catholics I know set for themselves. He’s been married and as far as i know faithful. His children all seem like great people too. I just can’t understand how a guy that is so good in private life should be such a political scum bad {my interpretation of what I’ve read here.}

Bill Clinton was more or less the same kind of public person as he was private. George Bush II appears to be the same. It’s one of my drawbacks with Guiliani (my second choice since Fred appears destined on the train for veepdom or a return to LA) how can this guy be trustyworthy as a public person, if he’s such a jerk in private. My take is that he’s probably a jerk in public life also, and maybe that is okay in a NYC mayor, just not so sure if its gonna fly in a president.