Fred Thompson Explains the Truth About the Palis

Hear Fred Thompson in his "Winners and Losers" segment cheerleading for Bibi Netanyahu. Fred understands Israel's situation better than most Israelis and explains it in a way in which only, well Fred could. FRED THOMPSON SHOW

Show date 22 June 2009

Powered by Podbean.com

9-11, Islamic Terrorism and the Next President

Today is 9/11. Many people are taking a vacation from politics to honor the fallen, to re-visit the horrible day in 2001 where America received a wake up call for ignoring the threat of Islamic facism.

Today as we remember the fallen, we warn the jihadists and would-be jihadists in the words of Ronald Reagan, you can run but you can't hide. And for this reason, it is appropriate not to pause from politics, but to consider how to defend America in the future. Who will put country before the UN? It is clear that only 1 candidate seeking the office of President of the United States understands war and will not shy away from defending America. One candidate will not make offers of no pre-condition talks with madmen, nations, people and religions which do not seek peace with America but capitulation from her.
In the words of Fred Thompson, supporting John McCain:

Here McCain makes his own vivid impression. His record shows that, early on, he understood the ominous intentions of Russia’s leaders, made the Iranian mullahs fear him and foresaw the need for a troop surge in Iraq, which, along with his own military service and longtime Armed Services Committee membership, add up to real national security experience.

By contrast, voters struggle with his opponent’s virtually nonexistent record on these issues. It comes down to a common sense decision that says: With national security traffic so heavy, this is not the moment to turn the car keys over to a teenage driver. Presidents don’t have time for drivers ed.

G-d Bless America

---

The John McCain I got to know -Posted on September 10th, 2008
By Fred in Conservative, Values, Commentaries


(Cross published in The Politico)

Although Americans are used to Labor Day campaign kickoffs, this year’s back-to-back political conventions meant exposure to more than the usual number of partisan promises of a bright future and excoriation of the opposition.

So, while most of us who address the national conventions like to think our words will make all the difference for our party and the great American who is our nominee, in reality our speeches usually just blend into a kaleidoscope of impressions the public takes from the week’s events.

That is why, in my own convention speech, I tried to tap into a sentiment already established in the public mind. I talked about John McCain’s remarkable and heroic record as a POW. But I also talked about the John McCain that I got to know while sitting in the desk next to his on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Citing any senator’s record, however impressive, may or may not electrify convention delegates. But it was my way of laying down a marker on behalf of a theory I have about both conventions and campaigns in general. Even amid a convention’s staged bedlam and overly hortatory speeches, voters do pick up information that develops into lasting impressions that count for something on Election Day.

The pundits and the political class sometimes underestimate the extent to which the public, in its subliminal but thorough way, collects data and makes informed electoral decisions. In a broader sense, voters carry into the polling booth this ultimate question about presidential candidates: “Who do I trust to make the right decision?”

Key issues for voters in this election will be freedom and national security, and here their impressions will be vivid: rogue nations with rapidly developing nuclear capabilities, nuclear-armed nations in volatile regions such as India and Pakistan, traditional nuclear powers such as Russia flexing their muscles and threatening the liberty and stability of those around them, and China building up its military in a way that suggests it wants to beat the United States in more than gold medals.

Here McCain makes his own vivid impression. His record shows that, early on, he understood the ominous intentions of Russia’s leaders, made the Iranian mullahs fear him and foresaw the need for a troop surge in Iraq, which, along with his own military service and longtime Armed Services Committee membership, add up to real national security experience.

By contrast, voters struggle with his opponent’s virtually nonexistent record on these issues. It comes down to a common sense decision that says: With national security traffic so heavy, this is not the moment to turn the car keys over to a teenage driver. Presidents don’t have time for drivers ed.

On the economy, voters have the same impression of McCain that I had on the Senate floor, where he fought plenty of fiscal battles. Some he lost. Some he won. Sometimes his colleagues liked him for it. Sometimes they most decidedly did not like him for it.

But the impression left with voters is, again, one that contrasts with his opponent’s. The McCain record shows he often stood alone in understanding that long-term prosperity of the American people requires us to stop wasting and spending the birthright of the next generation. And he knows, as his opponent does not, that you don’t make the American people prosperous by making the government richer and that, in an economic downturn, you don’t impose the largest tax increase in American history.

Finally, an issue McCain has asked me to help his campaign with — the federal judiciary — is one that disturbs voters to the point of having enormous electoral possibilities. The federal judiciary is the Democratic Party’s vehicle of choice to enact policies that could never see the light of day if they were required to go through the democratic process. And that party now talks about electing a supermajority in the Congress that, along with the most liberal president in our lifetime, would allow them to change the face of America without enacting one piece of legislation — a change that would take us a generation to rectify, if we ever could.

McCain has chosen to make this issue a priority because he thinks the public worries about a Supreme Court lost to liberalism for our lifetime, and that it cares about the appointment of federal judges who will follow the law and the Constitution and not remake it along the lines of their own policy preferences.

McCain’s opponent has carefully worked his way up the political ladder, guided by no discernible political principles except adherence to party positions — which he has showed a willingness to change if the political winds blow too strongly against them. By contrast, McCain’s life and career exemplifies courage, sacrifice and leadership.

Put simply: Others talked about reaching across the aisle and reconciling differences; John McCain did it. Others went along with pork barrel spending and getting the political benefit from it; John McCain fought it. Others wanted to declare defeat and cut and run in the central front of the war on terrorism; John McCain fought for a strategy that would ensure victory. Others gave lip service to reform; John McCain actually made it happen.

So impressions matter in politics — as do the facts and the record that create those impressions. Through all the convention hoopla and focus on the Electoral College horse race, then, the impressions of John McCain come through. Impressions of the same John McCain who lit up the political atmosphere last week with a startling and brilliant choice for running mate, the impressions of a lifetime record summed up by a word: leader. And a title: Mr. President.

Fred Thompson's Israel Position

Fred Thompson's Position on Israel

Israel

The United States is committed to the security of Israel and the safety of the Israeli people. The historical, familial and cultural ties of our peoples are the basis of this commitment. It is strengthened by the shared values and shared interests of our nations. Our mutual goal is an economically and militarily strong Israel at peace with its neighbors. We must exercise our traditional leadership role in the region and continue our longstanding support to Israel to achieve this vision.

Key Issues

Security Cooperation. Security assistance to Israel is a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy and provides a cost-effective way to ensure the security of one of America's closest allies. The new U.S.-Israel security agreement forms the basis of this relationship and will help both the United States and Israel counter common threats in the Middle East and advance mutual goals. Meanwhile, we must also continue comprehensive strategic dialogues, joint military training, and cooperation on development programs such as missile defense.

Iran. Iran remains the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, has attempted to undermine regional stability, and has repeatedly threatened Israel. Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, longer-range missiles, and modern conventional forces. And it is led by a tyrant who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Iran also supports terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, such as Hamas and Hizballah, and is responsible for supplying weapons to extremists who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. Its sponsorship of terrorism must end as well. We must work with the oppressed people of Iran to bring about regime change, while also working with other responsible democracies to isolate the regime and stop its illicit activities.

Syria. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and is determined to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction and advanced ballistic missiles as it builds up its military forces. Its active meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs, and its support of Hezbollah, are destabilizing and must also end. Belligerent public statements by Syrian officials toward Israel and the military build-up along the Golan Heights continue to undermine the possibility of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Serious and sustained international pressure is integral to bringing about change in Damascus.

Hizballah. As Iran's proxy against Israel and the West, Hizballah remains a terror network that poses a direct threat to Israel and U.S. interests in the region. Hizballah has continued to rearm in preparation for another fight with Israel despite its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. The group's stranglehold over Southern Lebanon has increased and continues undermine Lebanese sovereignty. Hizballah is a terror organization that must be disarmed and disbanded.

Hamas. Hamas is another terrorist organization that must also be disarmed and disbanded. The United States should not recognize any Palestinian government run by Hamas, nor provide it financial assistance until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violence and terrorism, and adheres to all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel. The continued build-up of advanced weaponry by Hamas is a sign that the group does not desire peace and, though Israel should demonstrate restraint, it may be forced to take action against this growing threat.

Peace Process. Achieving the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security is the surest way to bring about an end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is also essential to advancing the prosperity and security of both peoples. But to achieve this goal, Israel must have a reliable and credible partner in peace who will take serious steps to build trust and confidence, to include disbanding militias, ending terrorism, and cracking down on extremists. This will require the active support of other states in the region. Israel retains the right to take measures to defend itself, such as conducting counter-terrorist operations and completing its security barrier.

A Solid Record of Support
Fred Thompson's statements and Senate record demonstrate strong and clear support for Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Speaking Out Against Iran and Syria. "The terror masters in Tehran and Damascus make only the most minor distinction between America and Israel. They say that America is the Great Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan, and both must be destroyed. The US must make it clear that we will not allow Iran to become a nuclear threat….In addition to pursuing sanctions and other traditional means, we need to take other steps to reach out to the Iranian people and help them get rid of their hated regime. Our goal is peace and freedom. The US must willingly accept its accustomed role of leadership in this effort." (Thompson Statement Before the Republican Jewish Coalition on 10/16/07)

Affirming U.S. Support of Israel. "During last night's debate in New Hampshire, I was appalled that none of the leading Democrats would stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against Iran--a country intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and whose leader has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. A Thompson Administration would stand by Israel and all of our friends in the region. We would not wait for U.N. permission to support an ally or defend our interests abroad. The U.N. has not shown sufficient resolve toward stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions." (Thompson Press Release, 9/27/07)

Defending Israel's Reaction To Missile Launches From Gaza. In defending Israel's military response to these attacks he stated, "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, NY? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war." (Haaretz, 9/12/07)

Senate Record. Fred Thompson supports legislation that advances the United States' and Israel's security and interests. During his time in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted for a number of measures important to both countries, including-

• A Senate Resolution in 2002 Expressing Solidarity With Israel And Reaffirming
• Commitment To Israel's Right To Self-Defense


• The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act Extension of 2001


• A Senate Resolution in 2001 Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Common Struggle Against Terrorism


• The China Nonproliferation Act he authored, which imposed sanctions on proliferators of WMD.


• The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000


• A Senate Resolution in 1999 Expressing Opposition To Unilateral Declaration Of Palestinian State


• The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act Of 1998


• The Jerusalem Embassy Act Of 1995

---

Rudys FoPo

Back in August, I reviewed Rudy's foreign policy piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs. I pointed out there that Rudy's position on the Palis and negotiations with Israel was really no different than the Bush position. Annapolis may alter that opinion, only time will tell. Well, now an official Fred position on the Israel has been published on the Fred'08 website. Fred's position also echoes the Bush position. Again, we see the terms: mutual respect, trust, respect, credible peace partner, disbanding militias, and ending terrorism, mostly the same catch words.

Fred is strong on Hezbollah and Hamas, while labeling Syria and Iran, state sponsors of terrorism, which is fightin' words. Overall a pretty good statement but nothing revolutionary. Fred's record though, unlike Rudy who has no "official" record, is there for the world to see in the official record of the US Senate.

Rav Benny's Candidate

Sunday, October 7, 2007
MK BENNY ELON TO HOST PRESS CONFERENCE IN JERUSALEM WEDNESDAY - US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO PUBLICLY ENDORSE ELON PLAN AT PRESS CONFERENCE

WWW.HAYOZMA.ORG

MK Benny Elon to launch "The Israeli Initiative" - The Right Road to Peace"
to Foreign Media

US Presidential Candidate to Publicly Endorse Plan at Press Conference

Jerusalem - Oct. 10th: MK Benny Elon, Chairman of the National Union Party,
will launch a million-dollar advertising campaign to promote "The Israeli
Initiative - The Right Road to Peace" on Wednesday, Oct. 10th at 12:00pm at
Beit Agron in Jerusalem. A prominent US presidential candidate will endorse
the plan, and MK Elon's vision via exclusive video at the press conference.

A prominent American multi-millionaire has funded the campaign. The campaign
will comprise of approximately 400 billboards, an extensive Internet
campaign in Hebrew and English, a website in seven languages,
www.hayozma.org , and the distribution of a 16-page booklet to key
decision-makers in Israel, the US, Europe, South America, Asia and Arab
countries.

"The Israeli Initiative" is MK Elon's proposed solution for solving the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is based on three principles; a
humanitarian solution, a regional solution and Israeli sovereignty over
Judea and Samaria.

Media Contact
Uri Bank, English Language Spokesperson
Cell: +972 52 566 5668

---

Rabbi Elon
From an historic perspective, this could be a significant event. The Bush administration is the first US Presidential administration to actively work for the establishment of an arab terrorist entity in the heart of biblical Israel. Clearly the inertia for the policy was inherited from Slick Willy, but the Bush people have been convincing in their interest to promote Pali statehood (in reality, not making much progress. One could argue this is intentional).

Almost immediately following 9-11, it appeared W. was very concerned with ending the conflict between the arab terrorist PA's war on Israel. Most people who have been watching and have any inkling of understanding of US interests have assumed that this policy continues to be a cost of the war against arabfacism. To have a US presidential candidate from the President's own party advocate a polar opposite policy, reversing the sitting President would be historic. For a Democrat presidential candidate to endorse the Elon plan would be suicide. It has to be a Republican, but who?

I do not wish to play the speculation game and this is not the purpose of the post but a little politics here would be instructive. The endorsement would be least important for Giuliani since it seems that Jewish Republicans have favored him from the outset. Thompson and Romney would benefit the most from the endorsement. The others are not factors in the race for now but McCain and Huckabee should be watched, their prominence possibly enhanced with an endorsement. Much to the chagrin of the Israel news junkies, in terms of Presidential politics, the story is a small splash of news and worth about 15 seconds of news coverage, maybe.

The Elon plan is worth looking at because it points out some realities:

• Most importantly that Samaria and Judea are Jewish land.
• Elon captures the morality issue, looking to handle arab relations in a humane and moral way while not surrendering the point that it is they who are occupiers.
• It indicts UNWRA for the arabian lobby fraud that it is.
• The plan tells the truth about Jordan, as politically incorrect as it may be.

IMHO, the plan re-creates the city-state. Pockets of arabian populations politically Jordanian but living on the Israeli side of the Jordan river will remain. Israel will be challenged to sell this plan without explaining the economic reality of how isolated villages will survive without all their needs being met from the outside given that the arabians have not developed too much in the way of industry and business. A modern city-state could be a very productive and profitable existence for its dwellers if a business niche could be discovered. An arabian city-state in Judea, for instance would have no national security issues, favorable tax status and trade relationships a virtual economic empowerment zone, if not for arabian hate.

In the end, the Elon plan will probably not be acceptable because it requires an end of conflict acknowledgement on the part of the palis and foregoing of the right of return. Jerusalem too will no longer be on the board. These factors require negating ego and accepting reality. Arabians have a hard time doing that.

FRED'S Announcement

Link to Fred

from: Blogs For Fred Thompson - Ad Preview

Script of Fred Thompson's Debate Ad

The Washington Post has gotten a preview of Fred Thompson's ad that will run during the New Hampshire debate tonight. Here is the script of the ad:

The script of the ad, titled "Debate"

FDT: I'm Fred Thompson and I approve this message. On the next President's watch, our country will make decisions that will affect our lives and our families far into the future. We can't allow ourselves to become a weaker, less prosperous and more divided nation. Today, as before, the fate of millions across the world depends on the unity and resolve of the American people. I talk about this tomorrow on Fred08.com, I invite you to take a look and join us.

ANNCR: Fred Thompson, Republican for President.

Notice the ad will direct people to go to "www.fred08.com". Right now you still get a redirect to I'm With Fred.

---

Thompson Unveils Ad Ahead of Thursday Kickoff

"Security, Unity, Prosperity"

Fred Thompson's image will begin appearing on the small screen today, not as District Attorney Arthur Branch, but as an official candidate for president.

In a 30-second campaign commercial sent to networks for broadcast at midnight, Thompson warns that "On the next President's watch, our country will make decisions that will affect our lives and our families far into the future. We can't allow ourselves to become a weaker, less prosperous and more divided nation."

Thompson concludes the ad with an invitation to visit his new campaign website, Fred08.com, on Thursday to watch a 15-minute video in which he officially announces his campaign for the White House. But if there is any doubt, an announcer then comes on, saying: "Fred Thompson, Republican for President."

The ad will air throughout the day today and during the New Hampshire Republican presidential debate on Fox tonight. Following the debate -- which Thompson is skipping -- he will appear on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show."

The idea, advisers say, is to create a national buzz about Thompson's official entry into the race and drive traffic to the new website on Thursday. The 15-minute video will be available on the website at 12:01 a.m. Thursday morning; advisers hope it steals the show the next morning on talk shows and cable news networks.

"The goal between now and the minute Senator Thompson is on Jay Leno is to drive as many people as we can to our website in anticipation of the launch video," said Communications Director Todd Harris.

The video, aides say, is part bio-pic, part conservative motivational film aimed at making the case that Thompson -- who was swept into office in 1994 as part of the conservative revolt that year -- has been fighting in the trenches for Republicans for decades.

The not-so-subtle dig: that former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani (who was endorsing Democratic governor Mario Cuomo that year) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (who was trying to run to the left of Sen. Edward Kennedy) are Johnny-come-Latelys.

"Success for us will be if we are able to commuicate Senator Thompson's mainsteam, conservative message to a Republican electorate that, frankly, until now, has been hungry for a new voice," Harris said.

On the stump, Thompson will tell audiences that his philosophical awakening dates to his reading of Barry Goldwater's book, "A Conscience of a Conservative" in the 1960s. "It compelled him to found the first Young Republicans chapter ever in Laurenceburg, Tennessee," Harris said.

Thompson's rivals have already tried to attack his conservative credentials by questioning his commitment to the anti-abortion movement and his sponsorship of campaign finance reforms that are anathema to many in the party.

But many of those stories emerged during the summer, when few voters are paying attention to presidential politics. And the critiques have so far failed to overwhelm Thompson's unique Hollywood-Washington persona.

His advisers hope that they can cement the narrative about Thompson's credentials before the attacks ramp up this fall. Said Harris: "There's no question that we need to have a good announcement tour."

--Michael D. Shear

The script of the ad, titled "Debate"

FDT: I'm Fred Thompson and I approve this message. On the next President's watch, our country will make decisions that will affect our lives and our families far into the future. We can't allow ourselves to become a weaker, less prosperous and more divided nation. Today, as before, the fate of millions across the world depends on the unity and resolve of the American people. I talk about this tomorrow on Fred08.com, I invite you to take a look and join us.

ANNCR: Fred Thompson, Republican for President.

Posted at 12:01 AM ET on Sep 5, 2007
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This

---

And away we go!

Fred will again steal the headlines away from another Republican candidate forum by airing a commercial pitching his announcement to run for President (on his website) during the debate, appearing on Jay Leno and will, as pointed out above, be the talk of the Thursday morning news shows and radio shows.

This strategy puts Fred in the limelight and overshadows the other candidates except for the expected round of negativity coming from them during the debate as they lament the fact that Fred chose not to join their little New Hampshire get together. Fred's approach will work because it is positive modern, and forward looking. Let's see which of the candidates at the debate is positive about Fred's entry into the race. I predict that such a strategy will be a boost to the campaign any other candidate who chooses to stay positive minded about this novel approach by the Thompson team.

Okay, some early signs to watch now that the "real" campaign may be upon us.

Fred Vs. Rudy

Here is the scoop on the two with the strengths and weaknesses.

Fred: He must maximize his dominant presence by blending his sense of strength with thoughtfulness. He must appear to be commanding to nullify the attack that he is slow and boring. His stump speech style must adapt to his message. Too much folksy and straight talk can hurt a candidate who could be vulnerable to being labeled old and tired. His message must match his pace and commanding style. I believe Fred is up to the challenge and will take advantage of Rudy's weaknesses. The lead commercial tests a campaign theme: Security, Unity, Prosperity.

Rudy: He must temper his energetic approach with poise. Rudy will be slammed by the Thompson campaign as inexperienced in national affairs and is a risky gamble for the US. Rudy, to be successful must explain why even though he is not conservative, Republicans should vote for him anyhow. His experience is indeed executive where Fred's is legislative, but Rudy was a mayor not a governor (albeit NYC is sort of like a state). Nonetheless, I believe Fred will have him cornered when the energetic not ready for prime time feel of Rudy meets Fred's poised and commanding demeanor.

It has been a surprise for many that Rudy has managed to remain as the favorite in the GOP race as long as he has. For many, Romney just is unelectable. I personally find him quite slick and trying to be too conservative to make up for his past.

My theory is that Republicans have been waiting for Fred to make the run for the nomination official before lining up behind him. This theory would mean that Rudy has been the favorite because Republicans felt that he was the only electable candidate actually running. Now, with FDT in the race, all bets are off for Rudy.

If I am correct, the polls will reflect a flip-flop of Rudy and Fred within three weeks. The Republican voters and then the rest of the American people will get to know Fred very soon and make lasting images of him very quickly. I hope he can pull it off. As I wrote on Free Republic as far back as mid-January (07) posting "draft Fred Thompson" - Who do you really want to see debating Hillary?

From Fred's Ammo Belt - Target NYC

A New York State of Mind

Posted on August 21st, 2007

By Fred in Commentaries, Second Amendment

When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws don’t fall in that category.

Anybody who knows me knows I’ve always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I’ve always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort.

Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.

The lawsuit has been a lesson in out-of-control government from the get-go. Mayor Bloomberg sent private investigators to make “straw” purchases – illegally buying guns for somebody else. According to the ATF, NY’s illegal “stings” interfered with ongoing investigations of real gun traffickers.

Obviously, New York won’t get much cash out of the few dozen shops being sued in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia; so the purpose can only be political. Some of those sued have already buckled under the financial strain of legal defense and agreed to live by New York City rules.

Ironically, all of this comes at a time of historically low violent crime rates and historically high gun ownership rates nationally. States where it is legal to carry guns are also at an all-time high, up to 40 from 10 in 1987 by NRA reckoning.

While this attack by New York City on the Second Amendment reinforces the importance of appointing judges who apply the law as written, there is another important legal point. Federalism, though usually seen as a protection of the states from the federal government, actually grew out of the need to protect states from other states that interfered in free commerce beyond their borders – as New York is doing today. In this case, we need Federalism to protect states from a big bully in New York City.

See also: NY Times on Fred, 2nd Amendment and politics

From the NYT article: Mr. Giuliani was a strong proponent of gun control in his days as a federal prosecutor and later as mayor of New York. As mayor he called for a national system of gun licensing, and broke with many Republicans to back a ban on assault rifles.

But such views could put him at odds with some of the conservative voters who wield influence in a Republican primary — a tension that Mr. Thompson may have been trying to call attention to with his Web posting.

Mr. Giuliani’s campaign Web site calls him a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

(snip)
The Web site contains a video of Mr. Giuliani discussing the issue. “My position is that whatever my personal view is, the Constitution of the United States decides this,” he said in the video. “The Constitution of the United States says that you have a personal right to carry arms, to have arms.”

---

As a Jew, I am always concerned when smug liberals tell me that the personal safety of my family and myself is limited to what the government can do to protect me. I am further concerned when that same government says, you can't have a firearm. Where have we heard this before? Why should I believe this nonsense given the course of Jewish and human history? Bear in mind, I am not apocalyptic nor I am paranoid, expecting a Cossack run at my house. But I do understand the lessons of history. And, I do understand how balance of power plays out in costs and benefits.

The Republican party has consistently supported the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution assures that Americans have a right to own firearms. This is not a debate despite the liberal think tank deliverables to the fading few who still listen to them. Despite the tear-filled eyes of vast numbers of Democrat party members, the debate is essentially closed. Americans have a right to own firearms.

Why then is it that candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advocate for gun control wants my vote? What is the mayor's opinion of the attempt by a federal court in NYC to sue firearms salesmen in other states? Why does it seem that in regards to bellwether Republican party issues does the mayor have to repeatedly defer to the logic of 'it isn't my opinion that matters'?

According to the article Giuliani's website "calls him a strong supporter of the Second Amendment". Maybe the mayor's website and the NRA website should discuss this matter? And if the mayor has always believed that the Constitution guarantees the right to own and carry firearms, did he ever say so before his Presidential campaign? What happened to federalism? Why does he believe his personal beliefs are more important than the solemn rights of the people granted by the US Constitution? His history of stiff gun control policies would seem to answer these inquiries.

Please see the interesting comments and informational posters found on the A-Human-Right website. The writer was born in the old Soviet Union and is Jewish. He understands how the tyranny of authoritarianism/totalitarianism is dependant on disarming the citizenry.

From A Human Right website
Historic precedents of this kind are depressingly numerous. We cannot open a history textbook and pick even a decade in which genocide and government oppression of civilians were absent. Where most people are defenseless, even small numbers of ill-meaning agents of a government or an organized criminal group have murdered thousands with impunity.

Even the pretexts for the imposition of strict gun control remain constant. The 1938 German weapons control law, which stripped Jews of all weapons, including sticks, was enacted as a response to "Jewish terrorist activities". The 1968 laws adopted in the United States were based closely on the 1938 German law and cited very similar reasons for the enactment.

Fred Thompson on Border Security

The Importance of Border Security
Posted on August 16th, 2007

You can’t have national security without border security. It’s not only necessary for any meaningful immigration reform; border security plays a key role in both the interdiction of illegal drugs and in defending America against terrorist threats. Weak borders allow terrorists and smugglers, as well as millions of illegal aliens, easy entrance to the United States. Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear our government is committed to its first responsibility: the protection of our borders.

In June 2006 the federal government began Operation Jump Start, deploying 6,000 National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol in securing our border with Mexico. Now, the number of National Guard troops helping as part of Operation Jump Start is being cut in half and by September 1st only 3,000 troops will still be in place.

Since Operation Jump Start began, fewer illegal immigrants are crossing our southern border. Marijuana, cocaine, and heroin seizures have increased—a reminder that better border security is an essential part of drug interdiction. Tightening control of our southern border may also be a factor in the lack of additional terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, 2001. Clearly the National Guard’s presence on our border with Mexico has been a success.

While the drawdown of the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start was scheduled since the beginning of the operation, the troops were supposed to be replaced by 6,000 new U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. These replacements, called for by President Bush, would increase the total number of agents from 12,000 to 18,000. However, recruitment has been slow and continuing with the planned withdrawal of the National Guard is significantly reducing manpower on the border.

We’ve found a successful strategy for increasing border security. We need to advance it, not retreat from it. The President got the message and last week announced a new set of initiatives to combat illegal immigration. Having failed for years to solve our illegal immigration problem and protect our borders, however, Congress and the President need to keep the National Guard in place until we meet the goal of 18,000 border agents.

---

RUN FRED RUN

Rudy's Fopo

No Palestinian State Now
(You Can't Be Bush and Run From Bush At the Same Time)
Politics
Giuliani: No Palestinian State Now, The Associated Press
2007-08-15 13:16:58.0
Current rank: # 430 of 5,494

WASHINGTON -
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said he opposes creation of a Palestinian state at this time and would take a tough stand with Iran, including destroying its nuclear infrastructure "should all else fail."

Outlining his foreign policy views in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani said "too much emphasis" has been placed on brokering negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - an apparent swipe at President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who have been pushing both sides for final status negotiations despite Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June.

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said. "America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."

Giuliani said in the article that he would not rule out negotiating with Iran, but such negotiations should proceed from "a position of strength."

"The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure," Giuliani said.

Bush recently warned Iran of "consequences" if Iran is determined to be assisting the flow of explosive devices into Iraq.

---

This strong statement by Rudy is direct and to the point right? Almost. This article which appears, on the surface to reveal a strong pro-Israel position is in actuality much weaker upon reflection. Based solely upon the quotes in the article above, these lines caught my attention:

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said.

Realistically, how is this different than the Bush administration's position? W. and Condi staked a position which calls for an end to the conflict and no violence. The administration's operating philosophy can be characterized as... the spread of democracy will negate terrorism and support for terrorism. Hamas of course, has proven this position doesn't apply to Arabia.

Does anyone think that Bush, viewed by many (but not all) as a pro-Israel President wants to create a PLO state which, depending on who is running it will invite Al-Qadea to execute operations out of Gaza or turn a blind eye to lawlessness so long as the ruling elite is able to deposit large sums of cash in overseas accounts? Hardly.

The following is an excerpt from a February 2007 article written by Morton Zuckerman which ran in the Jewish Press and appears on the ZOA website:

Bush called for the Palestinians to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror." But instead the Palestinians voted in the terrorist group Hamas. Bush called for Palestinian Arabs to "engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." But the PA has not jailed and disarmed terrorists, confiscated their weaponry or closed the bomb-making factories. The terrorist killings go on.


Bush also called for ending "incitement to violence in official media, and [to] publicly denounce homicide bombings." But incitement and glorification of terror continue unabated in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps. In fact, PA president Mahmoud Abbas recently called at a rally of 250,000 Palestinians for Palestinian groups to turn their guns on Israelis, saying, "Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at the Occupation."


In the PA, schools, streets and sports teams are named in honor of suicide bombers and other mass-murderers of Israelis while in PA maps and atlases, a country called "Israel" is nowhere to be found. Instead, "Palestine" appears in is place.


Bush called on "Palestinians to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." But in PA-run areas Christians are persecuted, Jewish holy sites desecrated, women remain second-class citizens and liberty is as remote as ever.


It's clear the Palestinians have not fulfilled a single one of President Bush's conditions for statehood. Moreover, whether ruled by Abbas's Fatah or by Hamas, the PA remains a terrorist regime.

Well, it is nice to see that Rudy supports the Bush position. The original article from Foreign Affairs, entitled Toward a Realistic Peace is here.

Fred Thompson, to the best of my recollection has not staked a specific position on a "pali" state but his views on the conflict in general are found here Terrorized. Thompson did co-sign a 2001 Senate letter to the President calling for a reassessment of US-Palestinian relations.

Religion and Politics

Worship Rudy Less, Like Him More
Thursday, July 26, 2007

A new Gallup Poll attempts to measure the impact of faith on the presidential election, and finds that religious Republicans are less likely to consider Rudy Giuliani their top choice. In fact, Giuliani's greatest support in his party comes from those who never attend church. Among those who attend regularly Giuliani still leads but by just a few points over the as-yet-undeclared Fred Thompson.

The poll also finds Hillary Clinton's popularity extends across all types of worship. Within her party she holds a significant lead across all levels of church attendance. In a head-to-head match-up between Giuliani and Clinton churchgoers do favor Rudy, though those who do not attend prefer Hillary by a good margin.

The full poll is here.
Posted by John DeSio at 8:50 AM
tags: nypress, new york, 2008, polls, rudy giuliani, hillary clinton, fred thompson

---

The data does not look as bad as the article portrays. Rudy still leads in every category only less so amongst the "regular attendance" category. What it clearly shows is that Fred Thompson, upon actually entering the race will quickly take the lead in the "regular attendance" crowd of republican voters which if one can judge by past voting preference, is heavily weighted to the religious attendance crowd.

{see Churchgoing closely tied to voting patterns}



The Republican chances of winning the White House in 2008 with a lame duck president pushing all-time disapproval numbers are debatable. Running a candidate who is distant from the base of the party and who will not ignite a flame of passionate campaigning by much of the activist base of the party is a recipe for electorial disaster.

Rudy does not fare very well amongst those who do not attend religious services often, (these likely being dyed in the wool democrats) and only loses to Hillary (if the poll can be trusted) in this category. What the poll does not do is weigh the numbers in each category. At least the polling data confirms that the godless love the Clintons.

FDT Interview Hannity and Colmes June 5, 2007

Fred and Sean Talk About the Presidency, Politics, and The War on Terror

Exclusive! Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson on Possible White House Bid
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 5, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And welcome to "Hannity & Colmes." Thank you for being with us. I'm Sean Hannity, reporting tonight from Washington, D.C.

Now, just minutes ago, Republican candidates for president debated in Manchester, New Hampshire, but there was one person missing, and tonight you will only see him right here. And joining us now on a "Hannity & Colmes" exclusive, former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee. Senator, how are you?

FMR. SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R), TENNESSEE: Thank you. Good.

HANNITY: All right, so do you wish you were at this debate tonight?

THOMPSON: Yes, do you think they missed me?

HANNITY: I think so.

THOMPSON: No, I'd rather be here with you.

HANNITY: Well, I appreciate it. You know what was interesting? I did a lot of research on you today. One of the things you said that really struck me is you said you had never desired the office of president. It's not something you ever thought you wanted for yourself.

THOMPSON: Yes, that's right, but more and more I wish that I had the opportunity to do the things that only a president can do. You know, I think we're coming to a time of crossroads in our country in many respects. I think there are great opportunities out there. I think there are great perils out there. I think there are great opportunities for leadership. I think we're going to have to do things better and more together than we've ever done before. And you have to think seriously about that.

HANNITY: You said once that, you know, voters may want someone who has lusted for the job since they were student body president. You said, "If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office, they've got their priorities mixed up." Do you see that in some of the other candidates?

THOMPSON: Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys. I even caught part of the debate while I was getting ready a while ago.

HANNITY: What did you think?

THOMPSON: Well, they did all right, from what I saw. I think it's kind of counterintuitive for most people to think someone would be ambitious enough, for example, to be senator, but not be ambitious enough to run for the presidency. Most people think that every senator sees the president every morning when he combs his hair. Of course, it didn't take me as long as some, but I never did. I never thought that the price was worth paying.

At the time, we were living in good times. People thought that they would last forever, that the peril would not be out there that we face today, that the economy would rock right along. And, you know, we were in the era of compassionate conservatism and that sort of thing. It was a good time.

I think things are different. I think the times are different. I think the challenges are different. I think I'm different as a person. And, you know, the times have to fit the man; the man has to fit the times. And that's what we're looking at right now.

HANNITY: You are clearing identifying, though, in this thought process, in other words, you're identifying differences in positions that you have with the other candidates. What are some of those differences? And, you know, I guess it's the basic question: Why do you, Fred Thompson, want to consider being the next president of the United States?

THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now. We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.

And we've got a military that's still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

So you can't sit back, and see people, you know, talking their sound bites and going over their list of things to get applause lines and so forth, and see where your country is headed, and knowing what you've got to do for the next generation in order to make it the same way that it was when we inherited from the prior generation, without thinking serious thoughts about what you ought to do about it.

HANNITY: Let's talk about where you stand now. You've created a testing the waters committee. It allows you to raise money, hire staff, gauge support. There's been talk you may announce the Fourth of July, the week of the Fourth of July. Where are you now?

THOMPSON: ImwithFred.com.

HANNITY: Wait a minute. Is this a big announcement?

THOMPSON: Kind of get that out of the way.

HANNITY: Every candidate has a Web site. It's ImwithFred.com?

THOMPSON: That's right. We just put it up. And we want to hear from the folks and check it out.

HANNITY: But that's one step closer?

THOMPSON: Yes, yes. It's a thing that the law allows you to do, test the waters, raise some money in order to get a staff together, and really see what's going on out there, and see whether or not your notion of what's going on in the country is really what, in fact, is going on in the country. And I think that there's something going on that's a little different.

HANNITY: Well, we had heard at one point you may announce on the Fourth of July. You sort of said no in one interview. Are you thinking about that still?

THOMPSON: We haven't decided on a date. The Fourth of July is just as plausible as any other, but it doesn't mean it's going to be the Fourth of July.

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you this. The biggest issue is the war, obviously, in Iraq. It is the defining issue of our time. These are consequential times, transformative times. You have said it's a war between civilization and evil. We just thwarted potential terror attacks at JFK...

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: ... and at Fort Dix. Explain what you mean, “the battle between forces of civilization and evil.” What do you mean by that?

THOMPSON: Well, it has to do with the need for all of the civilized countries, as I would call them — that is, most all of them that are not terrorist countries or terrorist havens — to realize we have to come together. I mean, that's one of the big failures that we have right now, because a lot of people in other parts of the world just don't see it yet. They see us as the number-one threat and really, in some cases, the only threat. We're going to have to bond together and face this thing together against these forces, because it's going to pick us off one by one.

We've seen our country attacked time and time again over the last decades. Now you see it, whether it's Madrid, whether it's London, whether it's places that most people have never heard of, they're methodically going around trying to undermine our allies and attack people in conventional ways. Meanwhile they try to develop non-conventional ways, and get their hands on a nuclear capability, and ultimately to see a mushroom cloud over an American city. No country can do that alone, and by themselves, when you face the global threat that we're facing.

HANNITY: Let me then take it a step further, because the big question that came up in the debate tonight with the Republicans, "Knowing what we know now, was Iraq the right move, was it the right thing for us to go into Iraq, in your estimation?"

THOMPSON: Yes. Sean, what people don't think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there. The new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.

I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands on, or been working assiduously toward, getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that's what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

HANNITY: You said, essentially, you agree with what the president is doing now. You said — one comment you made is, “Wars are full of mistakes, all wars are full of mistakes.”

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: You said, "We went too light later, and the rules of engagement were wrong, and the strategy was wrong." Where do we go from here based on what you just said?

THOMPSON: I think we've got to take the next step, and that is wait and see what General Petraeus says in September. I listen to him. I think he's a man of honor. I think he may be one of the best people we've got in the entire military, and I think he'll tell us the truth.

I also listen to the parents of young people who are over there. Jeri and I have some friends who have kids — two different families who have kids who have gone over there and re-upped more than once. And they come back, and they communicate back a totally different story than what we hear now. They're full of optimism; they're full of hope; they think they're doing something positive for their country and something positive for the people of Iraq. And as long as they have hope and optimism, I have hope and optimism.

HANNITY: Harry Reid is wrong?

THOMPSON: Harry Reid's flat wrong. He's already declared defeat. You know, that's one of the things that the American people have got to be disgusted over, I think. We're only arguing now over the date of our surrender.

HANNITY: And Hillary Clinton is wrong saying this is George Bush's war?

THOMPSON: Well, of course it is. I mean, which way did she vote when the time came?

HANNITY: She voted for it, and then she just voted to cut off funds.

THOMPSON: Yes. Of course, you know, it's a public opinion poll deal for most of them, and not looking at the long...

HANNITY: What does that mean to you? You vote to send them to war, and then you vote to cut off funds, and now the guys is saying they sent them to war, and then they said...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMPSON: That means you want to be president worse than anything in the world. And they know how to read public opinion polls.

HANNITY: We're going to take a break. More with Senator Fred Thompson coming up in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue now our exclusive interview with former Tennessee senator, potential presidential candidate, Fred Thompson. I was trying to get a date out of you; I didn't get one.

I want to talk about Iran. There was an estimate that came out; they could have nuclear capability within three to eight years. As president, how do you stop that from happening?

THOMPSON: Well, that's almost an impossible one to answer, Sean. The president has access to information that I don't have. Let me tell you what I think about Iran, and it might lead you to some ideas about the approach I would take.

I think, first of all, Iran might fall of its own weight if we give it a little help. We're not doing nearly enough to get communications in there and let those people communicate with one another. You know, if everybody in Iran had a computer, it'd be a free country today. There are riots and shootings of Iranian Guard that are seldom reported, but they're taking place all over the country nowadays. Their inflation is up; unemployment is up. You know, they have to import a lot of their basic staples. Apparently...

HANNITY: One refinery.

THOMPSON: Yes, 40 percent of their oil, or gasoline. And, you know, they're apparently trying to follow the North Korean economic model there. And, you know, the radical religious approach to everything trumps, you know, sound economics. Eventually, that's going to catch up with them. So we've got to encourage that and use our intelligence resources and use our intelligence capabilities, if they're sufficient, to do everything we can to help bring that about, I think.

HANNITY: If it's clear that they're getting close to getting the weapon, would it be your policy to support preemption as a means of taking out or wiping out those facilities, considering they've, you know, repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

THOMPSON: Yes. Yes.

HANNITY: It would be?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you about this. We had news today about Scooter Libby, 30-month prison sentence. You called it a shocking injustice. Why?

THOMPSON: Yes, well, it has been all along, for a long time. I've never seen a case where so many government offices, and officials, and entities fell down on the job, and helped perpetuate an injustice for their own ends. I mean, it's tragic, and it's below the radar screen with most people, except around here. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and I followed it closely. I didn't know Scooter, but I called him up when I saw what was happening. And I said, "I'll help you if you need help," a long time before I thought about presidential politics.

But you got a situation here where they knew shortly after they started this fiasco that no crime had been committed. What they were looking at didn't constitute a crime, because of the status of Valerie Plame. She wasn't a covered person under the statute. Then they found out that Scooter Libby didn't leak her name. Richard Armitage over at the State Department did that, but they still kept digging and digging, because the press expected the special prosecutor to come up with somebody in the Bush administration.

The Justice Department never should have appointed special counsel. They were taking criticism and heat from the press and Capitol Hill. And they had to do something, they felt like, so they caved, appointed a special counsel. And he spent a year and a half digging and digging, and he came up with a process crime allegation.

Scooter Libby was here looking at national security estimates, and working like two full-time jobs, and his doctor said, you know, working himself to exhaustion, trying to protect his country, and they found some inconsistent statements that he made, allegedly. So they put a case against him, and it was rife with inconsistent statements from the government witnesses.

HANNITY: Right.

THOMPSON: And yet they picked him out to bring the burden of this entire political witch-hunt on him, this single individual, and prosecuted him. And now the judge saw fit to go way beyond what his own probation officer recommended was a suitable sentence.

HANNITY: Statutory guidelines, yes.

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, and this sentencing is just the last...

HANNITY: I only have a second in this segment. If you were president, would you pardon him? And do you think the president would pardon him? And would you pardon him now?

THOMPSON: I would, absolutely.

HANNITY: Do you think the president should?

THOMPSON: It's a gross injustice perpetuated in large part by this CIA, and this Justice Department, and this special counsel, who they appointed, and it ought to be rectified.

HANNITY: All right, we've got a lot more with Fred Thompson, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue our exclusive interview with "Law and Order" star, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

All right, we don't have a lot of time. I need quick answers here. The Democratic debate the other night, I sum it real quick: End the global war on terror phrase; raise taxes; nationalize health care; retreat in Iraq. Sum up the major Democratic candidates?

THOMPSON: I think that's a pretty good summary.

HANNITY: What does it mean to you, if you become the nominee?

THOMPSON: It means that they're wrong. It baffles me that we're facing the bankruptcy of the nation and a global threat that we're not really prepared to deal with, and they're talking about some the things that they're talking about, with the clichés that they've been using now for 15 years.

They think, by not being George Bush, that they can win this next election. They think that, because the pendulum swings as it does politically, and the Iraq war is unpopular, that all they've got to do is do this sort of thing, and it will fall in their lap. And if we don't do things better and smarter, it will fall in their lap.

HANNITY: Yes, let me ask you this. There are three issues that have come up, because I've examined your record thoroughly now, knowing this interview is coming up. There are three issues come up where people question your conservatism.

One is when you checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where you — the box said, "Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months." That wasn't your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?

THOMPSON: I don't remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff — based on what they thought my position was — filled it out.

But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.

I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...

HANNITY: So states' rights for you?

THOMPSON: Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution.

HANNITY: Federalism. All right, the other issue: you were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?

THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.

I said, "Let's raise the hard money legitimate limits that we've always had from $1,000" — it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that's a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.

HANNITY: But 60 days before a general, 30 days before a primary...

THOMPSON: That's not working.

HANNITY: That's not working?

THOMPSON: It shouldn't work.

HANNITY: You would repeal that?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Let me ask you the one issue — you split your decision on Clinton impeachment. You voted to convict on the obstruction, but not the perjury. You still stand by that? Was that the right decision?

THOMPSON: Absolutely. It didn't have anything to do with how I felt about him. It had to do with what I considered my role to be. I considered my role to be a judge, and I had to be dispassionate toward the individual. I went back to the founding fathers and what they thought constituted impeachable offenses and was quite surprised, in some respects, that some misbehavior did not constitute impeachable offenses in their views. So I followed that, and that caused me to split my vote.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Your family has already come under attack. Are you ready for that aspect of a presidential run, where your family members, your wife, your kids come under fire?

THOMPSON: Well, you're never ready for that. And your reaction to that initially is very visceral. But when I have a wife who's as strong, and sweet, and as good a mother as I have. Who puts it all into perspective, gives me courage to keep my eye on the ball — and my eye is on the ball, and I'm not going to be dissuaded by all of this. It's another disconnect between the professional politicians, and the press and Washington and all of that, from the American people, who are sick and tired of all that. So it's a badge of honor to get attacked by some of these bozos.

HANNITY: That's a good thing. All right, we have a minute left. You become president, first 100 days, top five priorities, off the top of your head, you'd like to accomplish?

THOMPSON: I'd go to the American people, first of all, and explain to them the significance of this global war in the war on terror and what we need to do. I would tell them that we need to reform a tax code.

HANNITY: Change the tax code?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Alter it?

THOMPSON: I think it needs a total overhaul. I would explain to them, in order to keep our economy going, we would need to keep taxes low. I would explain to them that we cannot continue down the same road that we're traveling as far as Social Security, and Medicare and entitlements are concerned, that we're bankrupting the programs and pitting one generation against another.

And we're better than that. We need to come together, the way our country has done time and time again over the last 200 years, and exercise a little common sense, and get back to the basics that were in the Constitution.

HANNITY: Senator, we're out of time. Good to see you again. Thank you for being with us.

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

---

Well, lets take a look at some of FDT's remarks and apply some analysis:

HANNITY: All right, so do you wish you were at this debate tonight?

THOMPSON: Yes, do you think they missed me?
HANNITY: I think so.

THOMPSON: No, I'd rather be here with you.


A polite waive off. Who wants to be involved with these blah panels when you can raise $220,000 in 18 hours of I'm With Fred? FDT won the night being on H&C and announcing his new website. BTW, the ratings support my point.

HANNITY: Well, I appreciate it. You know what was interesting? I did a lot of research on you today. One of the things you said that really struck me is you said you had never desired the office of president. It's not something you ever thought you wanted for yourself.

Uh Oh, the "fire in the belly thing" ;)

THOMPSON: Yes, that's right, but more and more I wish that I had the opportunity to do the things that only a president can do. You know, I think we're coming to a time of crossroads in our country in many respects. I think there are great opportunities out there. I think there are great perils out there. I think there are great opportunities for leadership. I think we're going to have to do things better and more together than we've ever done before. And you have to think seriously about that.

Nice intro Fred, good rally the troops stuff, but it is fair to ask about the details (they appear later)

HANNITY: You said once that, you know, voters may want someone who has lusted for the job since they were student body president. You said, "If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office, they've got their priorities mixed up." Do you see that in some of the other candidates?

THOMPSON: Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys. I even caught part of the debate while I was getting ready a while ago.

Again a very nice opportunity offered up by Sean to explain why Rudy is running for President. The basic answer being, he can. And remember, FDT is only exploring a possible run /sarc.

in response to the same question...I think things are different. I think the times are different. I think the challenges are different. I think I'm different as a person. And, you know, the times have to fit the man; the man has to fit the times. And that's what we're looking at right now.

Nicely crafted answer as to his evolved interest in running for President. The times are different, Fred is saying and that I am the man for the times. The voters though, will decide.

HANNITY: You are clearing identifying, though, in this thought process, in other words, you're identifying differences in positions that you have with the other candidates. What are some of those differences? And, you know, I guess it's the basic question: Why do you, Fred Thompson, want to consider being the next president of the United States?

THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now. We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.

And we've got a military that's still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

So you can't sit back, and see people, you know, talking their sound bites and going over their list of things to get applause lines and so forth, and see where your country is headed, and knowing what you've got to do for the next generation in order to make it the same way that it was when we inherited from the prior generation, without thinking serious thoughts about what you ought to do about it.


"We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election."

These are possibly the most important words said in the campaign to date by anyone. FDT is right on the money. The conflict is a clash of civilizations and FDT isn't afraid of saying so even at risk of losing in Detroit. Nonetheless, this needed to be said. The day after Iraq is the most crucial day of the war. Walking away from Iraq without a specific accomplishment (other than ridding the world of Saddam a very worthy accomplishment indeed)in the area of driving a stake into the middle of the arabian world would have been viewed as failure. Not a true failure mind you, but in the minds of the bad guys, a sign of weakness. This is the same argument Moshe makes with HaShem at the time of the M'raglim when HaShem suggests that the Jews should be, well, removed from history and a new nation made for Moshe to lead. Moshe responds that the nations of the world will say, the G-d of Israel was able to redeem the people from Egypt but unable to bring them to the land. Both are examples of perceived weakness where the truth is that the mission was re-defined.

We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.
Yep, but you better bring a Republican Congress in with you or the party of the leftists will force you into tax increases and corresponding pork for each dollar needed for real national interests. Democrats playing politics with national interests? never..... :)

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

Good strategy, tying the competition argument with tax reform, government and social program reforms. Yes FDT, American competitiveness must not be held hostage to government tax code, regulation and endowment programs. The beneficiaries of these programs, who have been taught to rely upon the government for generations must be given a better alternative, a humane alternative which improves upon what is available now but must be more efficient. Big government running these programs is a sure way not to deliver.

---

Hannity then gets to the big questions, the ones which demonstrate that FDT is in the big leagues. The Iraq war is not a hard issue for which to have an opinion. It is a politically touchy issue with strong opposition and supporters who are loosing faith with the post-war arabian violence. This struggle was not unpredictable any more than the military victory was not unpredictable. What was unpredicatable is that George W. Bush would surround himself with idealogues who would project their "feelings" and "dream states" to post-war Iraq, forgetting that arabian dual weaknesses (arab culture and islam)would be close to insurmountable obstacles to hurdle. Western governmental philosophy, checks and balances, protection of minority rights, free speech, etc., while we want to believe are universal values or at least are universally desired, achieving a political shift on the ground where these values can be grown domestically is a huge multi-generational task. W. was told otherwise. arabia is not post war Japan or Germany. for reference see Get Saddam Then Get Out

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you this. The biggest issue is the war, obviously, in Iraq. It is the defining issue of our time. These are consequential times, transformative times. You have said it's a war between civilization and evil. We just thwarted potential terror attacks at JFK...

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: ... and at Fort Dix. Explain what you mean, “the battle between forces of civilization and evil.” What do you mean by that?

THOMPSON: Well, it has to do with the need for all of the civilized countries, as I would call them — that is, most all of them that are not terrorist countries or terrorist havens — to realize we have to come together. I mean, that's one of the big failures that we have right now, because a lot of people in other parts of the world just don't see it yet. They see us as the number-one threat and really, in some cases, the only threat. We're going to have to bond together and face this thing together against these forces, because it's going to pick us off one by one.


This is a tall order. The islamo-facists have infiltrated into much of Europe and FDT is asking the Euros to stand up to them. But in the "...battle between forces of civilization and evil.”, the free world cannot sit on the sideline. There aren't many choices that fall between civilization and evil. As it relates to Israel and the Jews, some of the advice and policy choices coming from the civilized side have merely been 'evil-lite'. The Euros need to get over their visions of free and democratic palestine and see these barbarians for who they really are. Even this week, the Euros were looking into a "work-around" to send money to the "PA" and trying to pretend that these funds would not be taken by Hamas and that while in the hands of Abu Mazen they would be used to support the infrastructure not the war on Israel. I'm not sure that a proponent of such a fantasy doesn't belong in the evil camp. Are you listening W?


We've seen our country attacked time and time again over the last decades. Now you see it, whether it's Madrid, whether it's London, whether it's places that most people have never heard of, they're methodically going around trying to undermine our allies and attack people in conventional ways. Meanwhile they try to develop non-conventional ways, and get their hands on a nuclear capability, and ultimately to see a mushroom cloud over an American city. No country can do that alone, and by themselves, when you face the global threat that we're facing.

{paraphrase of Ronald Reagan}I don't care if we are liked, but we will be respected.

HANNITY: Let me then take it a step further, because the big question that came up in the debate tonight with the Republicans, "Knowing what we know now, was Iraq the right move, was it the right thing for us to go into Iraq, in your estimation?"

THOMPSON: Yes. Sean, what people don't think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there. The new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.

I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands on, or been working assiduously toward, getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that's what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

FDT, next time please ask rhetorically if Pelosi and Reid are concerned about the abuse of human rights, the brutal torture and murder of civilians and how history would have judged the US if Saddam was left alone. This is the first time, at least the only memorable time when I heard a significant voice say, "it just didn't matter whether Saddam had nukes or WMD at the time of the invasion"

HANNITY: You said, essentially, you agree with what the president is doing now. You said — one comment you made is, “Wars are full of mistakes, all wars are full of mistakes.”

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: You said, "We went too light later, and the rules of engagement were wrong, and the strategy was wrong." Where do we go from here based on what you just said?

THOMPSON: I think we've got to take the next step, and that is wait and see what General Petraeus says in September. I listen to him. I think he's a man of honor. I think he may be one of the best people we've got in the entire military, and I think he'll tell us the truth.

I also listen to the parents of young people who are over there. Jeri and I have some friends who have kids — two different families who have kids who have gone over there and re-upped more than once. And they come back, and they communicate back a totally different story than what we hear now. They're full of optimism; they're full of hope; they think they're doing something positive for their country and something positive for the people of Iraq. And as long as they have hope and optimism, I have hope and optimism.

A very careful and pragmatic answer, leaving the door open but sticking to the policy. Support the troops, they deserve it.

HANNITY: Harry Reid is wrong? Sean, Dingy Harry is always wrong

THOMPSON: Harry Reid's flat wrong. He's already declared defeat. You know, that's one of the things that the American people have got to be disgusted over, I think. We're only arguing now over the date of our surrender.

HANNITY: And Hillary Clinton is wrong saying this is George Bush's war?

THOMPSON: Well, of course it is. I mean, which way did she vote when the time came?

HANNITY: She voted for it, and then she just voted to cut off funds. Calling John Baal Kerry

THOMPSON: Yes. Of course, you know, it's a public opinion poll deal for most of them, and not looking at the long...

HANNITY: What does that mean to you? You vote to send them to war, and then you vote to cut off funds, and now the guys is saying they sent them to war, and then they said...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMPSON: That means you want to be president worse than anything in the world. And they know how to read public opinion polls. Please see above the reference to fire in the belly.

---

(Hannity)...I want to talk about Iran. There was an estimate that came out; they could have nuclear capability within three to eight years. As president, how do you stop that from happening?

THOMPSON: Well, that's almost an impossible one to answer, Sean. The president has access to information that I don't have. Let me tell you what I think about Iran, and it might lead you to some ideas about the approach I would take.

I think, first of all, Iran might fall of its own weight if we give it a little help. We're not doing nearly enough to get communications in there and let those people communicate with one another. You know, if everybody in Iran had a computer, it'd be a free country today. There are riots and shootings of Iranian Guard that are seldom reported, but they're taking place all over the country nowadays. Their inflation is up; unemployment is up. You know, they have to import a lot of their basic staples. Apparently...

HANNITY: One refinery.

THOMPSON: Yes, 40 percent of their oil, or gasoline. And, you know, they're apparently trying to follow the North Korean economic model there. And, you know, the radical religious approach to everything trumps, you know, sound economics. Eventually, that's going to catch up with them. So we've got to encourage that and use our intelligence resources and use our intelligence capabilities, if they're sufficient, to do everything we can to help bring that about, I think.

This is a logical but not an enlightened answer. Bush 41 kept saying this about Iraq. The US has a tendancy not to push too hard too fast prefering to wait for events to play themselves out. So FDT's statement here is consistent with US policy making. But the ability to shift gears, and take decisive action, breaking away from conventional wisdom and precident, when necessary is the difference between leaders and observers.

HANNITY: If it's clear that they're getting close to getting the weapon, would it be your policy to support preemption as a means of taking out or wiping out those facilities, considering they've, you know, repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

THOMPSON: Yes. Yes.

HANNITY: It would be?

THOMPSON: Yes.

FDT is on record here supporting an attack on Iran to prevent Persian hegemony in the region and a possible nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.

On Scooter Libby
THOMPSON: And yet they picked him out to bring the burden of this entire political witch-hunt on him, this single individual, and prosecuted him. And now the judge saw fit to go way beyond what his own probation officer recommended was a suitable sentence.

HANNITY: Statutory guidelines, yes.

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, and this sentencing is just the last...

HANNITY: I only have a second in this segment. If you were president, would you pardon him? And do you think the president would pardon him? And would you pardon him now?

THOMPSON: I would, absolutely.

HANNITY: Do you think the president should?

THOMPSON: It's a gross injustice perpetuated in large part by this CIA, and this Justice Department, and this special counsel, who they appointed, and it ought to be rectified.

FDT is not making friends with the careerists in the Justice Department and the CIA. Libby took the hit and FDT says it won't happen on his watch. FDT is on very comfortable territory here.

THOMPSON: Yes, well, it has been all along, for a long time. I've never seen a case where so many government offices, and officials, and entities fell down on the job, and helped perpetuate an injustice for their own ends. I mean, it's tragic, and it's below the radar screen with most people, except around here. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and I followed it closely. I didn't know Scooter, but I called him up when I saw what was happening. And I said, "I'll help you if you need help," a long time before I thought about presidential politics.

But you got a situation here where they knew shortly after they started this fiasco that no crime had been committed. What they were looking at didn't constitute a crime, because of the status of Valerie Plame. She wasn't a covered person under the statute. Then they found out that Scooter Libby didn't leak her name. Richard Armitage over at the State Department did that, but they still kept digging and digging, because the press expected the special prosecutor to come up with somebody in the Bush administration.


For FDT, veteran of two Presidential Senatoral prosecutions (Nixon and Clinton. yes I know Nixon's technically wasn't a prosecution but was headed that way), his opinion carries weight.

But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.

I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...


Sean, why did you interrupt Fred? I wanted to hear the end of the last sentence. FDT has been questioned about the abortion issue time and time again. For the record, he voted perfectly in the Senate on the abortion votes that came up and was endorsed by National Right to Life, unlike another candidate and former mayor.



HANNITY: Federalism. All right, the other issue: you were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?

THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.

I said, "Let's raise the hard money legitimate limits that we've always had from $1,000" — it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that's a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.


FDT doesn't say here if he still believes in the $2,000 limit. Fred, please comment on unlimited donations with full public disclosure.

HANNITY: That's a good thing. All right, we have a minute left. You become president, first 100 days, top five priorities, off the top of your head, you'd like to accomplish?

THOMPSON: I'd go to the American people, first of all, and explain to them the significance of this global war in the war on terror and what we need to do. I would tell them that we need to reform a tax code.

HANNITY: Change the tax code?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Alter it?

THOMPSON: I think it needs a total overhaul. I would explain to them, in order to keep our economy going, we would need to keep taxes low. I would explain to them that we cannot continue down the same road that we're traveling as far as Social Security, and Medicare and entitlements are concerned, that we're bankrupting the programs and pitting one generation against another.

And we're better than that. We need to come together, the way our country has done time and time again over the last 200 years, and exercise a little common sense, and get back to the basics that were in the Constitution.



FDT states that the war on terror is his number 1 issue and the tax code revision is number 2; lower taxes, reform entitlements, use common sense. Federalism, that is the campaign message. Federalism is the Constitutional mandate and is the choice for America by the Founding Fathers. The campaign will require illustrated examples at the micro level to define to the American people what this means. Who better to spin a tale than FDT?