Fred Thompson was almost a Senator for 8 years. He withdrew, even though he was a shoo-in for re-election in 2002, because he did not want to become a career politician.
Barak Obama has been a Senator for TWO YEARS! I think our city councilman has more experience.
But yet, whenever you bring Fred up, the Liberals say "But I thought Republicans didn't WANT Hollywood actors to be in politics"
Well, we don't want INEXPERIENCED Hollywood actors in Politics. Fred is a two term senator, I think he has a LITTLE more knowledge of politics than Rosie O Donnell or Sheryl Crowe, don't you think?
OK, now here it goes. Democrats, what about Fred Thompson makes you not want to vote for him? I can give good reasons why not to vote for every Democrat running, so give me a GOOD reason why Fred Dalton Thompson is not our man in '08.
2007-05-30 03:48:25 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Fear.
Pretty quick you are going to get the advance propaganda from the socialists on Fred, they are afraid of him and will be going all out to try and stop him. They are promoting Paul to conservatives as the "sensible" alternate, and you just have to ask why. I believe they know that Paul can divide the vote and the socialists are hoping that will happen.
What I really find hilarious is why no one is talking about congressional races, or maybe that should be saddened not hilarious. Congress is where the real danger to our country lies, we got over slick willy pretty quick in spite of the disasterous job he did in the economy and national security.
2007-05-30 05:14:07 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Maybe because the last Republican actor to become president was such a disaster...
..oh, wait, that was Reagan.
But, really, it's for exactly that reason. There's no better way to deflect criticism from the rival party than to level the same criticism at them. Of course it's not a valid comparison. Obama isn't just inexperienced in terms of politics, he's pretty young compared to most of the other candidates, too.
2007-05-30 08:10:53 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Experiance has a certain value, but experiance isn't all. A broad education, a sharp mind, a commitment to public service, a real belief in democratic ideals, an ability to draw experianced and like minded people to service to their country, an ability to inspire and to lead and ultimately be able to rise above both party and politics may be more important than mere 'experiance'. The constitution only requires that a person be 35 years of age and a natural born citizen....if the Founders had believed that more than that was a requirement, they would have said so. Wadda' 'ya think?
2007-05-30 04:07:19 · answer #3 · answered by Noah H 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The same reasons that might cause me not to vote for any other politician: I don't agree with Thompson's positions on a variety of issues that are important to me. I disagree with some (but not all) of his statements on abortion, education, gun control, immigration, and foreign policy.
There, see? I didn't bring up experience at all, just his stated political views; what other reason do I need? Whether you agree with my positions or not, how can you argue with that method of choosing a candidate?
That said, he's a good actor. I liked him in "The Hunt for Red October" and "Law and Order", but not so much in "No Way Out". Then again, there had been some of Reagan's and Schwarzenegger's films I liked and disliked. Liking or disliking Reagan and Schwarzenegger (and Thompson) as politicians has nothing to do with their political experience or acting talent.
2007-05-30 04:03:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Thompson has less time in government than Obama, and he was a lackluster Senator.
"Barak Obama has been a Senator for TWO YEARS! I think our city councilman has more experience." Obama was a state legislator for 8 years, a constitutional law professor for 7 years, a lawyer with a private firm for 3 years, and a community organizer before that. He will have been a US senator for 4 years by the time of the 2008 election.
2007-05-30 04:00:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
The main reason my friend-Fear! They know with the idiots they have running they have no chance against him. Thompson stood up to Nixon even, so that proves he will be just and fair. If I was a Democrat candidate, I would be cutting my losses now. If I were an IslamoFascist, I would be scared.
Edit-Jake, I have no idea what you are babbling about, but Thompson's career in public service goes back to Watergate, where he investigated Nixon (a Republican).
2007-05-30 03:58:37 · answer #6 · answered by John 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
because he's against women's rights and civil liberties/rights
right now Obama and Ron Paul are the best canidates running. they aren't perfect, but I'd say if there was a top 2 out of the 20 or so running it would be them
2007-05-30 05:23:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fear... They knew they were in trouble before, and now it's SERIOUS!
As for "jumping ship," I'd been hoping for Fred or Newt... But had to choose from the ones who were running. Enough said.
2007-05-30 05:58:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's mighty freakin UGLY!
Who wants to look at that droopy frog face for
4 years...isn't looking at Bush's brillo pad hair
enough torture for the American people???
Besides...Jeffy heard he's gay...
Why in the world would Republicans
want a gay man to be their rep?
2007-05-30 11:42:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Aha !! I just pointed that out in a previous answer . I agree whole-heartedly . I think it's a combination of things for the Liberals . They either are unaware of his stature and record(both impeccable) . . . or. . . they want to diminish his record because they are afraid. . . . very , very afraid !!
Fred Thompson WILL be our next President !!
2007-05-30 04:02:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋