Yeah, the Dems are scared to death of this guy

[TexasTiger 12,966]

He displays a firm grasp of Al Qaeda:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

"They said, 'You gotta quit smoking,'" Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

But Thompson's tale of a smokers' revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

"I don't know what that was about," said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/..._ban_pushe.html

[AFTiger 282]

Actually, he is right.

NYDaily News Distorts Fred Thompson's al Qaeda/Smoking Comment

Men's News Daily

| 9/10/07 | Warner Todd Huston

Candidate Fred Thompson is the butt of media jokes, once again. This time it is due to the reporting by the New York Daily News of Thompson's comments in Sioux City, Iowa over the weekend. Thompson's claim that an al Qaeda enforced smoking ban in Iraq led to many Iraqi citizens joining the U.S. side in the attempt to rid the country of the foreign terror network was reported to the misinformed media's amusement, becoming an excuse to make fun of the candidate. But, as is the case with most "reporting" by the MSM, Thompson turns out to be right in his assertions and the MSM has egg on their faces, once again. It seems more and more that the media has decided to do their level best to destroy Fred Thompson's bid for the White House. I wonder what that says of their fear of him?

The NYDNews reported Thompson's comments on Saturday.

"They said, 'You gotta quit smoking,'" Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

So, how are they purposefully misconstruing this smoking ban comment? They start with making light of the comment.

But Thompson's tale of a smokers' revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

"I don't know what that was about," said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

... and then they just leave it at that. No further comment or investigation of what Thompson meant, or could have meant. No research into the facts of the claim, no attempt to clarify. No follow up at all.

Leave it to the MSM to refuse to follow up on a candidate's comments solely for the purpose of making that candidate look bad. In this case they employed the method of making Thompson look bad by what they don't say, rather than what they do say of him.

So, what did Thompson really mean then? How did al Qaeda's smoking ban really affect the situation in Iraq? What did the media not bother to reveal about the real situation in Iraq, the one that Thompson referenced?

For a little elucidation of that we turn to military blogger and Iraq war correspondent Michael Yon. In June of this year, he reported that many Iraqis were extremely angry over how al Qaeda treated the citizenry when they were the power in their communities.

On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn't ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.

Amputations and executions just for smoking seems to me to be a good enough reason for Iraqis to be upset over a smoking ban, don't you? It seems to me good enough reason for them to join the U.S. led effort to kill such murderers and take their revenge, doesn't it?

The same point that Yon reported was also confirmed in June by CNN, as well.

Locals say al Qaeda amputated fingers for smoking

Nationalist insurgents say al Qaeda excesses are behind their falling-out. Several sources said al Qaeda members burned a 7-year-old child alive and murdered women and other children in the towns and villages around the provincial capital of Baquba. They did not give names or dates to back up their claims.

"They [al Qaeda] ruled with tyranny. They really harmed our town, so we had to stop them, and they left, no return," said one young gunman, who claimed membership in the nationalist 1920s Brigades.

Other civilian and insurgent sources in the towns of Tahrir and neighboring Buhruz said al Qaeda had imposed strict regulations, including a ban on smoking -- punishable by the amputation of a finger or hand -- and a curfew on citizens walking in the streets after 4 p.m.

It appears, then that a mere smoking ban wasn't all there was to the smoking ban that Thompson was talking about. It just wasn't as simple as the New York Daily News tried to make it seem with a tactic that made Thompson's point about the smoking ban seem trite and silly.

But, in truth, Thompson's point was 100% correct. Iraqis not only want their smokes, but having their fingers chopped off and their countrymen killed just for taking a puff or two was quite enough for them to join an effort to kill their tormentors. Yes, even if that meant joining the U.S. to do so -- a situation the MSM cannot seem to imagine is possible.

What we have here, though, is just another attempt to destroy Thompson. Sadly, even Drudge fell for this Thompson slagging effort as he highlighted the NYDNews story on his well-visited site.

It certainly seems that Fred Thompson's campaign for the Republican nomination for president ranks as the most media maligned campaign of this political season. Even Ron Paul is treated with more respect by the media.

So, why all the efforts to destroy Thompson's candidacy? Are they doing their best to find that "Macaca" moment to hang around Thompson's neck in replication of their successful destruction of George Allen's campaign in Virginia?

It would sure seem so.

[otterinbham 0]

Surely Republicans are not dumb enough to nominate this guy.

Yeah, his comments may be taken out of context, but would somebody please tell me what this guy stands for? What has this guy accomplished in the Senate? Heck, Ronald Reagan was an actor, but he also made a decent governor in California.

I cannot fathom why this guy is running. Sure, Giuliani has his flaws, but he demonstrated leadership by turning around New York City. His track record on that is indisputable. Mitt Romney may be plastic man, but he did an okay job as chief executive of Massachusetts. McCain may not pass all the conservative litmus tests, but he has honorably served this country and has shown himself to be an independent thinker--something this country desperately needs. Heck, even Ron Paul has been proven consistent, and even right, on some of his votes.

But Fred Thompson? Somebody please tell me why this guy is running. A good track record of looking presidential on Law & Order just isn't enough to get my vote.

[AFTiger 282]

Surely Republicans are not dumb enough to nominate this guy.

Yeah, his comments may be taken out of context, but would somebody please tell me what this guy stands for? What has this guy accomplished in the Senate? Heck, Ronald Reagan was an actor, but he also made a decent governor in California.

I cannot fathom why this guy is running. Sure, Giuliani has his flaws, but he demonstrated leadership by turning around New York City. His track record on that is indisputable. Mitt Romney may be plastic man, but he did an okay job as chief executive of Massachusetts. McCain may not pass all the conservative litmus tests, but he has honorably served this country and has shown himself to be an independent thinker--something this country desperately needs. Heck, even Ron Paul has been proven consistent, and even right, on some of his votes.

But Fred Thompson? Somebody please tell me why this guy is running. A good track record of looking presidential on Law & Order just isn't enough to get my vote.

I tend to agree with you but he has been historically consistant in his views. I can't get out of my mind how badly he was flummoxed by John Glenn during the investigation of the Clinton Administrations involvement with trading secret military technical information for campaign money. Glenn's reward was another ride in space.

But, Otter, even Fred Thompson is way more qualified than any of the Democrat candidates now running.

Let me add this. I think Fred Thompson's popularity reflects the general frustration of the Republican party with its candidates. None of them come close to what this country needs.

[otterinbham 0]

Surely Republicans are not dumb enough to nominate this guy.

Yeah, his comments may be taken out of context, but would somebody please tell me what this guy stands for? What has this guy accomplished in the Senate? Heck, Ronald Reagan was an actor, but he also made a decent governor in California.

I cannot fathom why this guy is running. Sure, Giuliani has his flaws, but he demonstrated leadership by turning around New York City. His track record on that is indisputable. Mitt Romney may be plastic man, but he did an okay job as chief executive of Massachusetts. McCain may not pass all the conservative litmus tests, but he has honorably served this country and has shown himself to be an independent thinker--something this country desperately needs. Heck, even Ron Paul has been proven consistent, and even right, on some of his votes.

But Fred Thompson? Somebody please tell me why this guy is running. A good track record of looking presidential on Law & Order just isn't enough to get my vote.

I tend to agree with you but he has been historically consistant in his views. I can't get out of my mind how badly he was flummoxed by John Glenn during the investigation of the Clinton Administrations involvement with trading secret military technical information for campaign money. Glenn's reward was another ride in space.

But, Otter, even Fred Thompson is way more qualified than any of the Democrat candidates now running.

Let me add this. I think Fred Thompson's popularity reflects the general frustration of the Republican party with its candidates. None of them come close to what this country needs.

Well, the Dems have Bill Richardson, but he doesn't have a chance in hell.

However, the Fred Thompson factor is really further proof of the GOP's leadership vacuum that really has manifested itself since the stupid Clinton impeachment trial. Rather than continuing to secure the hard-won gains of Welfare Reform, Republicans nominated a Big Government candidate in GWB, and have spent the last seven years behaving like a party in power rather than a party with a historical mission.

Want the Republicans to succeed? Be about a handful of issues confined to the lessening the role of government in this country. That means lowering taxes as much as possible, getting out of this terrible entitlement mess that will bankrupt the country, deregulating private enterprise as much as consumer safety will allow, and providing for a strong defense. That's it.

Yet the GOP has failed spectacularly. While winning elections is important, it's even more critical to win people over to your point of view.

[otterinbham 0]

Valium Fred, the panacea of the people

Andrew Sullivan

People like Fred Thompson. So far as I can tell, that is currently the prime rationale for his candidacy for president of the United States. He doesn’t need to launch a media blitz to achieve this level of public fondness. His avuncular, crumpled tower of a personage is well known from many episodes of Law & Order.

In this year’s race, only one other Republican candidate has even minimal charm – the obscure Mike Hucka-bee of Arkansas, who is obviously (and rather successfully) running for vice-president. Rudy Giuliani is many things, but likable isn’t one of them. Mitt Romney has failed to win over many conservatives despite an impeccable family life and a platform largely dictated by the far-right activist base. The slickness and eagerness to please seem to glide past any political traction. John McCain is too prickly to be cuddled. But good old Fred has the shtick down.

Last Wednesday he lolloped onto The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, skipping the Fox News Republican debate in New Hampshire, and announced for president. It was an unconventional entrance, disdained by even conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for its celebrity-driven aura. But it worked well enough.

The way Thompson drawls backwards into an answer, the manner in which he almost fails to finish his sentences because of boredom or his easy-going way, the gentle, inclusive humour, the effortless stage presence of an actor/lawyer: all these came across beguilingly. I’ll admit it: I like him. He’s been charming when we’ve met; and once you get over craning your neck upwards to see his lofty face, you find yourself wanting him to do well.

Of course, you’re not too sure what exactly he would do. Iraq? It’s the biggest question in the election, and I have absolutely no idea what Thompson favours. He says he wants the country to show resolve and fortitude. He was for the war. What now? “We stay until we get the job done.” Which means: “Until it is pacified enough that the people of Iraq have a free life and don’t get killed by Al-Qaeda . . . We cannot afford to go into a situation and not show resolve.”

Do we therefore withdraw now from Baghdad? Or Anbar? Do we add troops? Do we remove them? How quickly? These questions – vital ones, being debated not at some future date, but now – remain opaque in Thompson’s worldview.

He’s hostile to Iran’s regime, but has not offered any explicit strategy to deal with it. He’s George W Bush with a Valium and a more reassuring demeanour. That may be enough for the Republicans; but it is surely insufficient for the global hyper-power in a historic crisis of foreign policy.

Thompson is accused of being lazy. So was Ronald Reagan, of course. But there is a key difference between the Reagan of 1979 and the Thompson of 2007. Reagan had spent a lifetime honing arguments, finessing policy, articulating a broad philosophical view, while proposing concrete and radical policy options.

Thompson has a legislative record as a senator from Tennessee that is all but invisible. Yes, he has a solid conservative record on taxes and other people’s spending. But he was a hog for his home-state pork barrel projects. He was, in other words, a popular backbencher – but no more. At times his candidacy feels merely like a rationale for a man who senses that Americans are deeply uneasy about their current leadership, wants to reassure them, but has no idea substantively how.

A thinker he isn’t. He’s rather a conveyor of mood. In a period of less moment, when less is at stake, this might be an aesthetic preference: a calm presence in a storm. But on the substance of war, and foreign policy, the Thompson shtick can seem somewhat detached from the needs of the moment.

But he squares a Republican circle. Thompson is a Southern social conservative with mass appeal. He’s not a fire-breather, and not a Bible-thumper. No one can imagine him dragging women into jail for abortions. On marriage, he favours a federal constitutional amendment – but only to ensure that no state is forced to adopt same-sex marriage because of another one.

He also manages to frame his candidacy as somehow untainted by recent Republican incompetence and harshness. At times he almost sounds like Barack Obama, the Democratic contender, arguing that “problems will be dealt with when our leaders come together, as adults, and honestly seek solutions that extend past the next election cycle”. Unlike Obama, however, Thompson has almost no solid agenda to run on.

His fundraising has also been underwhelming, with a mere $3m in the second quarter (a fraction compared with Romney, Hillary Clinton or Obama). His formal announcement on September 6, moreover, means he won’t be required to file a third quarter fundraising total – suggesting a desire to keep embarrassingly low numbers out of the public eye.

His campaign has also been staggering from defections even before it began – and his wife Jeri has raised hackles among campaign staffers for her controlling tendencies. She is, it bears noting, a full 24 years younger than her spouse – and Thompson’s 17-year history of bachelor life before his 2002 marriage, may yet give him grief on the campaign trail among evangelicals.

The populist aura may also fade. His “aw shucks” regular guy routine wears thin once you see all the lucrative lobbying he has done since leaving the Senate. Yes, he once famously toured Tennessee in a red pickup truck. But he often had someone else drive and followed behind in a silver luxury sedan. If he is a Tennesseean, he is one with a dollop of Hollywood and Washington on top.

He has entered the race late but is second in the national polls for the Republican candidacy. Take that with a grain of salt. At this point, any halfway credible Republican not tainted with the Bush brush and with high recognition would be high up in the current field. But Thompson’s regional strength is real – and largely in the South.

With the major Republican candidates hailing from New York, Massachusetts and Arizona, that matters. The Republicans are a Southern party now. The candidate designed to appeal to them – Northeastern/Mid-western Mormon, Mitt Romney – just hasn’t caught on. It is hard to believe his Mormonism has nothing to do with this.

And so Thompson emerges in the widening sectarian and political gap. Buoyed by celebrity, unencumbered by actual policies, platitudinous on Iraq, but oozing calm, he is the antianxiety medication for a troubled America. I’m just not sure a sedative is what the country really needs right now. A wake-up call would be more appropriate.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Fred was right. What's the big deal ?