Fred Thompson gave his first official campaign speech Thursday in Iowa.
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) - As Fred Thompson officially hits the campaign trail, he's making a pitch to conservative Republicans nervous that the 2008 presidential race could lead to a Democratic president - and even one named Clinton.
Thompson says he's the candidate who could prevent that from happening by campaigning on true conservative values.
"To my Republican friends, I point out that in 1992, we were down after a Clinton victory," Thompson said in a video announcement posted to his campaign Web site Thursday morning.
"In '94, our conservative principles led us to a comeback and majority control of the Congress. Now, you don't want to have to come back from another Clinton victory. Our country needs us to win next year, and I'm ready to lead that effort," he said.
Full story: Thompson: I can stop Hillary Clinton
Thompson says he can stop Hillary, but took far too long to even decide to enter the race. The more I read on him the more I realize he is lazy and that is probably the reason for the time he took to decide, he actually had to get up of his a** and do something. Of course, it may be better to have a lazy president who causes no damage than a gung-ho one who wants to take over other countries. It is most likely going to be a case for voting for the least damaging prospect instead of the best prospect for repubs.
None of these comments even talk about the real issues that have divided this country. Abortion and death penalty? Come on. What about illegal immigration and the war on terror? And Alice, don't even talk about corruption and war. Are you even listening to what's going on. And if it wasn't for the first Clinton, we wouldn't be in this war anyway.
Anyone that thinks a Pro War candidate can win this election has their head stuck in the sand.
Is the government suposed to love?
You sound pretty reasonable...However, you seem to want to blame the GOP for failing schools? Last I checked, almost all major urban areas are run by Democrats, on the local and state level. Dumping more money into school systems that can't budget money already given to them is a waste!
Half of California's $140 Billion yearly budget is spent on education...how can $70 Billion not create a decent education system? Oh yeah, its not about money, but getting parents involved in their kid's education. Its about being able to hold kids responsible for their failings, too. Its about teaching kids and not just passing them on to the next grade. There's a lot you can do to fix schools before spending more money blithely.
More taxes and more money won't solve problems.
"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
The Republicans are too funny! Karl Rove thinks that Hillary is "fatally flawed" and Thompson thinks he's the only one who can stop her from winning in the general election.
Well, make up your minds, which is it???
Thanks for the "comment". I'd entertain a counter argument, but I guess your "you're wrong" will have to suffice. As for my library...well it's a nice book. I like the pictures.
I believe you mean lock, throw away the key and financially support them, but point taken. Life in prison is a debatable alternative, but we'll have to agree to disagree for now.
On the latter, I couldn't agree more. I do, however, disagree that the GOP cringes at the thought of providing assistance to the poor, hungry or uninsured.
The GOP's problem with Dem policy is that they want the federal government making all the decisions. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen the govt do much right in my lifetime. Therefore, I hardly see the logic behind allowing the Fed to have more control over our health, retirement or education. I believe that states know their people and issues better than Washington, and that individuals know what's best for their futures and families. This doesn't mean that we should trade the fed for bigger state govt, it just means that when govt intervention is necessary, we should look to the states and localities first.
Take NYC public schools. I'm no scientist (though occasionally accused of being one), but I'm pretty sure that NYC public schools have some different issues than say schools in Atlanta, Ga. My point is that all schools, hospitals and states have different problems/challenges, so why do we look to the federal govt for a one size fits all solution. Charleston is not New York City, so what works in New York may not work in South Carolina. What works in NYC, usually doesn't even work in New York State.
Long story short, I see Fred Thompson as the one person in this race who is looking at all America's problems and saying, "Hey, we need specialization. We need individualized solutions to serious problems and the fact of the matter is that the federal govt doesn't have the capacity to do it." We need to reduce the size of the federal govt, allow people to keep the money they earn and replace blank check govt spending with competition and efficiency. That all sounds pretty good to me.
The Republicans have had their turn these last 7 years and look at the world. More climate change, terrorism, wars and poverty all still haven't stopped, they have increased. We need a Democratic government or something in America to make Americans safer and the world a better place to live in.
Fred Thompson deserves media coverage...he's 2nd or 3rd in most polls. 10-20 times the support of clowns like Ron Paul and Al Sharpton...Hear him out. Seems like Edwards is more like Regan in appearance and style than Thompson. Thompson strikes me as a maverick like McCain, only he seems to rise in the polls without raising money than McCain raising/wasting money...
I love the quotes!
Please don't misunderstand me - when it comes to the failings in our education system, I believe there is plenty of blame to go around. And I do agree that some of the problems require solutions other than money. But let's not pretend that money can't fix ~some~ of the problems. Class sizes are far too big - that is a problem money can fix. Teachers are paid rediculously low wages - that is a problem money can fix. And supplement learning programs such as art and music are being cut left and right - yet another problem money can fix.
Second, there is the issue of apportionment. As long as we have a system that funds each school primarily by the property taxes generated in its community, the children living in the wealthiest neighborhoods are going to have an education vastly superior to those children living in the poorest neighborhoods, which does a great disservice to millions of children who, once again, are given no voice in the matter.
Finally, I agree that in a perfect world parents should be actively engaged in their children's education. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. Many children ~don't~ receive the necessary nurturing and support from their family. And while I think we should do all we can as a society to encourage greater responsibility by parents, I also think that we as a society have an obligation to not punish children for the failings of their parents.
I will be the first to acknowledge that our government doesn't always provide the best or most efficient solutions. But when you say "I haven't seen the government do much right in my lifetime" that strikes me as a bit harsh.
For all of their flaws, Social Security and Medicare are two programs that have done amazing work in rewarding people for lifetimes of hard work and allowing them to live lives of dignity (though certainly not opulence!) in retirement. These are by far the two biggest Federal Programs (although our military budget is rapidly closing in!) and even with all of their ineficiencies, most Americans will agree that they are important and helpful programs.
As for Federal vs. State programs, frankly I don't care where the solutions come from. There are pros and cons to each. But far too often, when a politician says "that is for the states to decide" what they really mean is "I don't want to be bothered with that" and I find that unacceptable from someone wanting to lead our nation. As a nation we are failing our children, and each of us has an obligation to try to figure out a solution - and that includes anyone who wants to be President.
Thompson is dreaming just like Edwards and Obama. He has zero chance to be nominee by Republican. Republicans have no brain about election so they may vote Thompson. You need to beat your own party candidates first. What a simpleton...
I would be happy with anybody other than Hillary (aka. Broomhilda). She is dangerous and scares me to death. She and her husband are felons and wil sell us out to fatten their own nest. Just ask Norman Shu.