Finally, a candidate who just might be real. It would have been easy for Thompson to promise all sorts of things. But he didn’t; he made no false promises to the Cuban American community to end the hated wet foot dry foot policy or anything else.
I appreciate Fred Thompson’s down to earth straight-forwardness. No Q cards, no script, he just tells you what he thinks.
I’m in LA, so obviously, I wasn’t present for Thompson’s visit to Versailles yesterday, but from what I’ve read and heard, I like his presentation. He didn’t come with a prepared speech, he didn’t make false promises, he just spent his allotted time letting people know who he is and what he believes.
As far as I can tell, like him or not Fred Thompson is the real deal, and he has his facts straight on Cuba.
I’ve almost written a book on fidel’s ties with terrorists, and I’m not the only one. How many of us have used that evidence in argument against castro apologists?
So what’s the problem with Fred stating the obvious? Anyone with half a brain knows that Fred Thompson does not consider Cuban refugees terrorists, his remarks alluding to the fact that Cuba is a known sponsor of terrorism, and that some Cubans entering the country may be suspect is not a blanket statement.
It seems to me, he’s saying much the same as many of us have been saying:
“I understand the price that you have paid. I know your leaders. One of the things that I would do is stay in close contact with your leaders and especially those in Florida,” Thompson said. “The first thing that any president would have to do is recognize the reality. And in this case it’s the reality of the fact that Castro is a dictator and he suppresses his own people.”
Fred Thompson is not running for the office of Cuba’s liberator, Fred Thompson is running for the office of president of the United States. I haven’t made my choice for ’08 yet, but I appreciate what Fred Thompson has not said, I appreciate the respect he has shown by not pandering.
Ziva, you are very wise. I too liked what I saw and heard. He did not make promises that can later be unrealistic to keep. He is running for President of the United States and that has to be his first priority. He is well informed on Cuba and I think that would be a plus for us. I liked what I saw, but I am keeping an open mind with all the other candidates. Definately Hillary, Obama and Tancredo are not an option for me, therefore they are off my list.
Ziva,
Bravo! You could not have said it any better:
“Fred Thompson is not running for the office of Cuba’s liberator, Fred Thompson is running for the office of president of the United States.”
I agree with you! . . . although I have not committed to any particular candidate at this time … so far Fred seems to be the one for me . . . he was coming to Charleston this Monday, but somehow switched to Greenville instead … 🙁
I wish you well 🙂 Melek
“Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy.” ~ N. Schwarzkopf
GOOD MORNING YA’LL, At least he did not wear a Guayabera and shout Viva Cuba Libre, like los otros falsos. He is who he is and he has earned my vote! Thank you for your well written insight today.
He was interviewed by the panel at Radio Mambi and the one thing he said he would look into if elected is the indictment of raul castro for the downing of the BTTR planes. He did not bring it up and he did not commit to it but said that he would have the attorney general looki into it, if elected. He explained that something like that is not as simple as it looks because it could result in American military men and American officials being indicted in other countries. I suppose that’s correct but I am confident the evidence is at least as strong against raul as it ever was against someone like Noriega. There are precedents for the US indicting foreign leaders.
He was interviewed by the panel at Radio Mambi and the one thing he said he would look into if elected is the indictment of raul castro for the downing of the BTTR planes. He did not bring it up and he did not commit to it but said that he would have the attorney general looki into it, if elected. He explained that something like that is not as simple as it looks because it could result in American military men and American officials being indicted in other countries. I suppose that’s correct but I am confident the evidence is at least as strong against raul as it ever was against someone like Noriega. There are precedents for the US indicting foreign leaders.
He was interviewed by the panel at Radio Mambi and the one thing he said he would look into if elected is the indictment of raul castro for the downing of the BTTR planes. He did not bring it up and he did not commit to it but said that he would have the attorney general looki into it, if elected. He explained that something like that is not as simple as it looks because it could result in American military men and American officials being indicted in other countries. I suppose that’s correct but I am confident the evidence is at least as strong against raul as it ever was against someone like Noriega. There are precedents for the US indicting foreign leaders.
He was interviewed by the panel at Radio Mambi and the one thing he said he would look into if elected is the indictment of raul castro for the downing of the BTTR planes. He did not bring it up and he did not commit to it but said that he would have the attorney general looki into it, if elected. He explained that something like that is not as simple as it looks because it could result in American military men and American officials being indicted in other countries. I suppose that’s correct but I am confident the evidence is at least as strong against raul as it ever was against someone like Noriega. There are precedents for the US indicting foreign leaders.
So does this show how poor a crop of candidates we have in this election that we actually appreciate and support someone who made zero promises to make any beneficial changes to Cuban policy?
A candidate who promises to do nothing to solve a problem is a “straight talker”?
Let’s hope the Reps. do the right thing and nominate Guliani since he is the only one that can win against Hilary/Obama/Edwards.
This country swings back and forth from Reps and Dems and nominating a candidate who is viewed as right of George Bush will not get the independent vote that normally decides these elections.
“I understand the price that you have paid. I know your leaders. One of the things that I would do is stay in close contact with your leaders and especially those in Florida,” Thompson said. “The first thing that any president would have to do is recognize the reality. And in this case it’s the reality of the fact that Castro is a dictator and he suppresses his own people.”
Couldn’t that statement have been made by any of the candidates on both sides?
Angel, we’re 14 months from the general election. Thompson’s campaign was announced officially only a few days ago. There’s plenty of time to define proposed policies. As far as Rudy goes your wishful thinking is nothing more than that. A pro gun control, pro abortion candidate will not win the nomination of the GOP. And the idea that only Giulani can beat Hillary is misguided in my opinion. It would be better to lose with a true conservative than to win with someone that only poses as a conservative. We should have learned that by now with both Bushes.
Angel, we’re 14 months from the general election. Thompson’s campaign was announced officially only a few days ago. There’s plenty of time to define proposed policies. As far as Rudy goes your wishful thinking is nothing more than that. A pro gun control, pro abortion candidate will not win the nomination of the GOP. And the idea that only Giulani can beat Hillary is misguided in my opinion. It would be better to lose with a true conservative than to win with someone that only poses as a conservative. We should have learned that by now with both Bushes.
Angel, we’re 14 months from the general election. Thompson’s campaign was announced officially only a few days ago. There’s plenty of time to define proposed policies. As far as Rudy goes your wishful thinking is nothing more than that. A pro gun control, pro abortion candidate will not win the nomination of the GOP. And the idea that only Giulani can beat Hillary is misguided in my opinion. It would be better to lose with a true conservative than to win with someone that only poses as a conservative. We should have learned that by now with both Bushes.
Angel, we’re 14 months from the general election. Thompson’s campaign was announced officially only a few days ago. There’s plenty of time to define proposed policies. As far as Rudy goes your wishful thinking is nothing more than that. A pro gun control, pro abortion candidate will not win the nomination of the GOP. And the idea that only Giulani can beat Hillary is misguided in my opinion. It would be better to lose with a true conservative than to win with someone that only poses as a conservative. We should have learned that by now with both Bushes.
Speaking of promises made and then disavowed I caught a segment of Mad Men, where they had a
political ad that Jackie Kennedy, cut in Spanish;
pledging her husband’s anticommunist credentials.
Now who was the target market for that ad; how does it explain the closeness of the 1960 race; and the dissapointment of Kennedy’s refusal to follow through with the promises therein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE
It would be better to lose with a true conservative than to win with someone that only poses as a conservative.
So you would rather lose with Thompson and have Hillary/Obama/Edwards as president than win with Guliani?
Honestly, I get the feeling Romney is going to win the nomination and lose to whoever the Democrats throw out there. Guliani and McCain seem to me to be the Rep. candidates that can win a national election, unfortunately they probably can’t win the Republican nomination.
Angel, to answer your question: yes. If we are going to have a liberal in white house I’d rather it be a Democrat. That way when the liberal policies fail they will take the rap for their liberal ideology. There is no reason for President Bush’s approval ratings to ever dip below 45% (the percentage of registered Republican voters) but they are because he has disappointed the conservatives in his own party.
Nothing good can come from electing a democrat in Republican clothing.
Remember that Clinton’s election in 1992 led to the Republican revolution of 1994.
I don’t want any more fake Republicans in the White House.
Angel, to answer your question: yes. If we are going to have a liberal in white house I’d rather it be a Democrat. That way when the liberal policies fail they will take the rap for their liberal ideology. There is no reason for President Bush’s approval ratings to ever dip below 45% (the percentage of registered Republican voters) but they are because he has disappointed the conservatives in his own party.
Nothing good can come from electing a democrat in Republican clothing.
Remember that Clinton’s election in 1992 led to the Republican revolution of 1994.
I don’t want any more fake Republicans in the White House.
Angel, to answer your question: yes. If we are going to have a liberal in white house I’d rather it be a Democrat. That way when the liberal policies fail they will take the rap for their liberal ideology. There is no reason for President Bush’s approval ratings to ever dip below 45% (the percentage of registered Republican voters) but they are because he has disappointed the conservatives in his own party.
Nothing good can come from electing a democrat in Republican clothing.
Remember that Clinton’s election in 1992 led to the Republican revolution of 1994.
I don’t want any more fake Republicans in the White House.
Angel, to answer your question: yes. If we are going to have a liberal in white house I’d rather it be a Democrat. That way when the liberal policies fail they will take the rap for their liberal ideology. There is no reason for President Bush’s approval ratings to ever dip below 45% (the percentage of registered Republican voters) but they are because he has disappointed the conservatives in his own party.
Nothing good can come from electing a democrat in Republican clothing.
Remember that Clinton’s election in 1992 led to the Republican revolution of 1994.
I don’t want any more fake Republicans in the White House.
Well stated Henry
Wow. OK so by your argument you prefer that the country go down the tubes for four years just so later you can say “I told you so”.
How about getting behind the candidate, if it is Guliani or McCain, that could best help lead this country instead of play politics. Let’s put the country in front of party politics.
So then to be clear you would vote for Hillary/Obama/Edwards instead of Guliani/McCain in hopes that the Dems, and by the same token the United States, fail?
I was actually there at Versailles for the Thompson event- and the crowd was very favorable towards what Fred had to say, as was I. Fred is the real deal, and he pulls no punches about any of the difficult issues of the day with regards to Cuba and terrorism in general. If you visit youtube, search the keywords “Versailles” and “Fred Thompson” to see the video I recorded of the event.
I was there sitting next to Lucha Libre. We recorded it and put it here:
http://www.local10.com/news/14117412/detail.html or you can search on YouTube as Lucha Libre says above.
I am hoping and praying that Barack Obama gets elected, what
is your opinion of him?
Okay, Jane rather than dismiss you as an uninformed idiot, or a troll, I´ll play nice. Why do you hope that Obama will be elected? Exactly what has he proposed for the future of America that earns your vote?
Thank you for “playing nice” as you call it Ziva. I knew you had it in you!
The reason I hope that Obama will be elected is be-
cause he has precisely NOT promised any quick fixes
for the future of America. I DO think he is a man
of integrity and not your typical “politician”.
He is very intelligent and moral, and to me those
are the makings of a good man AND a good FUTURE
President!
Jane, why do you think Obama is intellegent and moral? On what evidence are you basing that assumption?
This is the same Obama that stated he would bomb Pakistan – a nuclear country and technically a US ally – and that the United Nations should have a say in US foreign policy as well as take control of Iraq.
jane, I dont doubt your sincerity and I dont mean to deman your choice or opinion, but seriously, if you think Obama will make a good president simply because he’s a good, intelligent and moral man and ignore his statements you are being willfully myopic at best.