Its easy, Glen. With fred, there is no “there” there. He is the consummate empty suit. You may not care about about experience, but most of the country does. This was my bitch early on when W ran the first time. Usually, being a Governor is great experience, except that with W, he was a terrible executive, both in the public and private sectors. He just was inept at practically everything.

I can’t think of a single reason to consider Fred Thompson for President. He was barely present at his last elected position, hell, even as an actor, he was somewhat limited to “looking like a man in charge.” No depth, no promise of greatness. He is a manufactured candidate, and this time, thankfully, most of the country is not being fooled.

I find it mildly humorous and highly ironic. “Tickled to death” is a stretch, and in some secret CIA prisons a torture device.

Also, in before somebody else: Are you sure you should be linking to her, she doesn’t live in Tennessee.

Why support Fred? Because he can beat Hillary. It is not so much wanting Fred as it is not wanting Hillary.

Most people will hold their nose when they vote in this election. However, this is not the election to stay home.

Brittney, perhaps tickled would have been better than tickled to death. As for your moving to the left coast, we know your heart is still here in the Bible Belt.

Mack, what you are talking about and referring to is his lack of a thirst for power. I find that to be a good quality. I don’t want a guy who really, really wants to be President more than anything in the world. That type of person will say and do anything to get elected, regardless of his principles. Just look at Rudy, Romney, Hillary, and John Kerry. All of those candidates had to suddenly have “road to Damascus” type conversions to be viable as candidates in national elections. From an intellectual and ideological perspective, Fred is the only front runner who believes in anything. He has held firm in his federalist beliefs, opposing abortion, but believing the issue should be decided by the states, not believing in gay marriage but believing the issue should be decided by the states. His only flaw is that he voted for McCain-Feingold. But there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

Mack, being a true blue liberal, who is your candidate? Do you support Hillary. If so, then say hello to the status quo. But perhaps Democrats who support Hillary are like the Repubs who support Guiliani. They don’t care about principles. They just want to win.

Fox may be anti-Fred, but at least we know what they like.

Glen,

I’d guess that Mack’s affinity for Governors leads him to support Richardson.

Frankly, I don’t give a rats ass about “experience”. I think you pick someone who you get a sense of honesty and integrity from, and who supports positions closest to your own. The problem with Bush was that he chose idealogical hacks, and loyal flacks, to run the Government, as opposed to the best qualified. The people whom a candidate surrounds themselves with is just as, if not more, important than the candidate himself.

If Bush hadn’t have had Colin Powell in his corner, I personally think Gore’s margin of victory would have been bigger…unfortunately, once in office, Bush chose to ignore the only non-ideologue in the bunch, to both his, and the country’s, detriment.

I totally agree with the following statement made by Sean: “Frankly, I don’t give a rats ass about ‘experience’. I think you pick someone who you get a sense of honesty and integrity from, and who supports positions closest to your own.”

Sean, I assume that when you and most people discuss ideology, you are talking about foreign policy. I really don’t have much of an interest in foreign policy myself and generally define things based on domestic and economic policy. If you look at things from an economic perspective though, Bush is a lot closer to what you guys believe that what we conservatives believe.

But since we are on the subject of foreign policy, you have to remember that the two biggest villains, according to the left, Cheney and Rumsfeld, were both generally considered to be old school realists before the War on Terror. Both of them served with Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41. None of those administrations veered to far away from realism. Maybe you are inferring that people like Wolfowitz and the Weekly Standard guys had a lot of influence. If so, that makes sense. But as for who he surrounded himself with, before 9/11 Powell wasn’t considered to be any different than Rumsfeld or Cheney. And don’t forget who it was that tried to sell the Iraqi invasion to the UN.

One more thing, I do agree with part of what Mack said. The country does like experience for the most part and they especially like to elect governors, not Senators. Going back to Carter, Bush 41 was the only President that had not been a governor.

Frankly, I don’t give a rats ass about “experience”. I think you pick someone who you get a sense of honesty and integrity from, and who supports positions closest to your own.

I think experience is important. If I’m going to have open heart surgery, I’ll pick a surgeon with lots of experience (even if he’s a real ass) over a med student who seems like a real nice guy.

Same goes for running the government. I’d rather go with someone with experience and a proven track record than a no-name who seems nice and claims to support the same things I do. Actions speak louder than words, I want to see the voting/governing record.

Until the system is overhauled, the truth is that the chief executive better have boatloads of experience in dealing with a massive “corporation” or Government. With a Federal system so large, it takes an extraordinary person to make their ideology realized. This is particularly true if you have to deal with a hostile Congress.

Yes, Sean, I like Richardson alot, but i also like Dodd, Clinton, Kucinich, and Edwards. In fact, I am pleased with the field, except that it doesn’t include Gore.

Sean, I assume that when you and most people discuss ideology, you are talking about foreign policy.

Not necessarily…when it is reported that Fred Thompson secretly told National RTL that he would make sure key cabinet posts are held by pro-life people, that is another example.

I think experience is important. If I’m going to have open heart surgery, I’ll pick a surgeon with lots of experience (even if he’s a real ass) over a med student who seems like a real nice guy.

If we were electing a city planner, I’d agree fully; however, the President’s job is less “management” and more “decision making”. Not to mention, in most cases, a President’s second term is rarely as well regarded as his first, yet if experience were somehow a qualifier, one would assume the opposite to be true.

I think, in many cases, the President is a figure-head who sets the tone for the rest of the Government. Are we going to be inclusive, honest, open-minded, etc…or, are we going to be divisive, single-minded, antagonistic, etc…

The only experience for the Presidency is being the President, and there isn’t a single person running who has held that position.

Well, Sean, i suppose the case then could be made that being a CEO is quite similar. After all, until one achieves the position, no one has the experience.

Decision making takes experience. Life and death decision making gets better with a lifetime of trial and error and, yes, success behind it. Looking at a budget of several trillion dollars takes some experience. Also, hiring the right people to be around you, again, takes experience. Some Presidents may indeed be just figureheads, others, innovators.

Plus, knowledge how government works is invaluble. I know of no City Planner, btw, with his finger on “the button.”

Plus, knowledge how government works is invaluble. I know of no City Planner, btw, with his finger on “the button.”

Like a constitutional law professor

Decision making takes experience.

I don’t know, Abraham Lincoln, from a resume standpoint, didn’t have a whole helluva lot of experience in a management or executive role…he made some mistakes, but ultimately his beliefs, integrity, and ideas (I think) are what pulled him through the tough times.

Ultimately, I guess experience is in the eye of the beholder. What someone defines as experience is subjective. Personally, I don’t consider being married tot he President is necessarily experience for the Presidency; others do.

Sean, I assume that when you and most people discuss ideology, you are talking about foreign policy.

Gosh, I would have thought that the comments at MCB alone would have disabused anyone of that idea.

If you look at things from an economic perspective though, Bush is a lot closer to what you guys believe that what we conservatives believe.

Only if by “what you guys believe” you mean “what conservatives like to claim, falsely, is what liberals believe, as a propaganda tool.”

Glen,

If you want someone who has principles, namely, federalism, there’s a certain Republican who often gets denounced as a kook that would love your support.

So Mack likes an executive, a CEO type. Did he just endorse Mitt Romney?