Senator Fred Thompson is taking formal steps toward a presidential bid.

[Kimstu]

@Sam Stone

Another reason to like Fred Thompson: James Dobson doesn’t like him - he doesn’t think he’s “Christian enough”.

And since Dobson absolutely loathes Obama and Clinton, we should like them even better than Thompson, right?

[What_Exit]

@John Mace

OK, I didn’t look at the energy stuff. If you think being pro-ANWAR or pro-nuclear energy makes a person anti-environment, I think you’re mistaken. But it’s not an uncommon view.

The CAFE standards are the big hits. These need to go up, it is vital.

“Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy” is obscene to me, but I know that is just my opinion.

The ANWR is old, let us just say I am in the camp of little gain and much loss if we allow it.

I am actually pro-nuke, weird for a green, but then so is being a Green Republican. That is his one vote on Energy I support.

Jim

[Built_To_Last]

What is it about Fred Thompson that makes me think Ronald Reagan?

[Kimstu]

Well, they’re both actors, both Republican politicians, and both anti-environmentalist. Only one of them is dead, though.

Thompson seems to be more socially and religiously conservative than Reagan, although both did divorce their first wives.

[Built_To_Last]

@Kimstu

Well, they’re both actors, both Republican politicians, and both anti-environmentalist. Only one of them is dead, though.

Thompson seems to be more socially and religiously conservative than Reagan, although both did divorce their first wives.

Nope - nope — I think it’s the ‘ah shucks’ appeal of both. Don’t underestimate the appeal of the favorite uncle you never had.

[Kimstu]

I know what you mean about that Reaganesque folksiness; I guess I don’t associate it with Thompson simply because I’ve never seen him in anything but still photos.

[BrainGlutton]

@Kimstu

And since Dobson absolutely loathes Obama and Clinton, we should like them even better than Thompson, right?

Right.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Going to your link on the issues, how do you get anti-environmentalist from those 4 votes? He may very well be anti-, but I don’t think those votes are a good determinant of that.

See post #20, and laugh, scream or cry as suits your nature; but at any rate do not vote for Thompson.

[Kimstu]

To be fair, though, some of the other Republican candidates are just as Know-Nothingish about climate issues as Thompson, although they haven’t flaunted their ignorance quite so blatantly. If you want a conservative Republican who is actually concerned about environmental problems, you probably want…Brownback. No, seriously.

Romney talks often about a need for energy independence but rarely about climate change. In a statement last month, he criticized Republicans for “embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left.”

“Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore,” he said.

Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei couldn’t clarify his stance. She said last week that Romney “thinks it’s likely human activity is contributing to the environment, but is not sure how much.” When asked to be more specific about his opinions on climate change, Pompei declined.

“Great bodies of evidence on either side of the debate suggest different answers to the question,” she said. […]

Brownback traded his SUV in for a hybrid car and is an advocate for ethanol, biodiesel and nuclear power. He’s made climate change a local issue, proposing legislation, which was stalled in committee, to give farmers in Kansas and elsewhere tax subsidies for preserving open space and capturing carbon in the soil.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

See post #20, and laugh, scream or cry as suits your nature; but at any rate do not vote for Thompson.

Eh. I’m not a single issue voter. I just heard similar economic nonsense from Hillary on the news yesterday (something about how she’s going to stop companies from “exporting jobs”). I still might vote for her, but despite that, not because of it.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

From a purely practical point of view (I’m admittedly unfamiliar with his personality and policy), it takes tens of millions of dollars to get to the table. I find that completely against what it means to be a representative type of democracy, but aside from that, I find it a Herculean task that simply might not be possible. This venture might be dead before the bolt of lightning ever hits the good doctor’s machinery.

[Mosier]

@Least Original User Name Ever

From a purely practical point of view (I’m admittedly unfamiliar with his personality and policy), it takes tens of millions of dollars to get to the table. I find that completely against what it means to be a representative type of democracy, but aside from that, I find it a Herculean task that simply might not be possible. This venture might be dead before the bolt of lightning ever hits the good doctor’s machinery.

The guy’s a super-famous TV actor with a serious chance to win an election and embezzle HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. Not only does he have the tens of millions to use, but not using it would just be bad business.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

That’s also one of the things that slays me about how we do business now. The president gets paid, what, 175 thousand bucks? Something in that ballpark? How does it make sense to spend 50 million to make less than that? Of course, the lion’s share of that money comes from donors, so you can see where that’s heading.

Back to the response (thanks, by the way), I don’t know if not using would be “bad business”, but that also hinges on a definition of what “business” is. I’m really not in the mood for a person to be in the White House that doesn’t belong there. Not again. Now. Any other time is bad enough, but this time seems particularly crucial.

[marshmallow]

@John Mace

Eh. I’m not a single issue voter. I just heard similar economic nonsense from Hillary on the news yesterday (something about how she’s going to stop companies from “exporting jobs”). I still might vote for her, but despite that, not because of it.

Imagine Hillary vs. Thompson.

Hey, I hear Canada is nice this time of year.

I kid Mrs. Clinton, she’s the best Republican running…

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Eh. I’m not a single issue voter.

That’s reasonable, but there surely have to be ridiculous enough stances on issues of major significance that they’d cause a candidate to lose your vote.

For instance, if a candidate said we had to stay in Iraq because the Sunni insurgents were really mutant zombies that, if we didn’t destroy them over there, would swim over here and suck the life out of Americans while they were asleep in their beds, then wouldn’t you have to think this guy was too detached from reality to be President?

I just heard similar economic nonsense from Hillary on the news yesterday (something about how she’s going to stop companies from “exporting jobs”). I still might vote for her, but despite that, not because of it.

Wow, that’s a real apples-and-octopi comparison. Hillary makes remarks suggesting that she might have a less-than-ideal trade policy. Thompson is a global warming denier. Think the consequences might literally be a world apart?

[What_Exit]

Good article in the Boston Globe today:

I appreciate this part of it in particular.

McCain and Thompson are close – Thompson helped lead McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, and their Senate voting records have much in common. McCain, who fell short of fund-raising expectations in the first quarter of 2007, cannot afford to lose fund-raisers or potential donors.

Some analysts say Thompson’s entry would deny Giuliani his status as the GOP’s sole celebrity candidate.

For Romney, Thompson poses a new threat in the contest for conservative voters. Thompson has also stolen away one of Romney’s top supporters in Congress, Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who was with Romney until last week.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

That’s reasonable, but there surely have to be ridiculous enough stances on issues of major significance that they’d cause a candidate to lose your vote.

For instance, if a candidate said we had to stay in Iraq because the Sunni insurgents were really mutant zombies that, if we didn’t destroy them over there, would swim over here and suck the life out of Americans while they were asleep in their beds, then wouldn’t you have to think this guy was too detached from reality to be President?

Wow, that’s a real apples-and-octopi comparison. Hillary makes remarks suggesting that she might have a less-than-ideal trade policy. Thompson is a global warming denier. Think the consequences might literally be a world apart?

That’s not the point. I don’t believe that either of those sound bites represents what the candidates actually will do when it comes to confronting the problem. I’m really not afraid that Hillary is going to close the borders, because that what you’d have to do to stop the “exportation of jobs”, and I don’t think Thompson is going to laugh off the scientific community when it comes time to set actual policy.

We’ve got a long process set out for the candidates to stake out their positions and to outline their policies. That’s not going to come from 15 second sound bites-- not from either side. I’ll be looking at policy statements that they publish and what is reported in press interviews.

[John_Mace]

…And one other very important thing. If the Republicans were in control of Congress, I doubt I would be inclined to vote for Republican presidential candidate under any circumstances. No way would I risk another 4 years of what we saw in Bush’s first 6. I’d say almost the same about the Democrats, but I think the Pubs are close enough in the Senate, that there is little risk of one-party rule if a Dem were to be in the WH.

[BobLibDem]

I believe he is the odds on favorite to win the nomination. Look at the other “serious” alternatives:

The GOP base detests John McCain, no matter how much he sucks up to them.
The anti-abortion wing will not let Guiliani win the nomination.
Romney flip-flopped on social issues and is a Mormon for God’s sake!

I think Thompson blows these guys out of the water.

In November 2008, he’s got a much tougher fight. If he runs as a pro-Bush candidate (with respect to Iraq), he has no hope of capturing the independents. If he runs as an anti-Bush candidate, he loses the GOP base.

If he’s president, he’ll be just as lousy as Reagan was. Huge defeats for the environment and reproductive freedom. He couldn’t possibly be worse in foreign policy than Bush but he is definitely not what the US needs for domestic policy.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mosier

The guy’s a super-famous TV actor with a serious chance to win an election and embezzle HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. Not only does he have the tens of millions to use, but not using it would just be bad business.

No American president has ever been even suspected of embezzling from the Treasury. (Some of their subordinates have done so.) Presidents can make a lot of money off the job, of course – after their term is over.