Fred To Announce on Thurs.

[The Rabbi]

If you can believe the Tennessean...

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS0206/708310433

[saintsfanbrian]

This is also in the Commercial Appeal. He has had enough shake ups in his campaign party that I don't know. I am on the "Anyone but Hillary" trip, but then again, that is why Bush almost didn't win the election.

I have great fears that regardless of who is put up for the republicans they don't stand a snow balls chance in hell.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I'm a supporter of Fred, but even I am tired of all this nonsense. Just announce already you turd!

[towerclimber37]

no kidding! run so we can get down to the rat killin!

[Mike.357]

Thompson needs to announce and begin actively campaigning. I want to know how he stands on issues and time is running out as far as primaries.

Hillary ain't gonna win. Not to sound sexist but when it comes time to pull the lever or push the button or poke your chad people will not vote for her. I do not believe the country is ready to elect a woman president yet, especially not her.

[The Rabbi]

Hillary ain't gonna win. Not to sound sexist but when it comes time to pull the lever or push the button or poke your chad people will not vote for her. I do not believe the country is ready to elect a woman president yet, especially not her.

They are more than ready to elect one. I'd vote for one. Not Hillary of course but the leftists want to prove how advanced they are.

Don't discount Hillary. Bush got elected because he spent years prior to the election building grass roots organizations and funding avenues. Hillary has done the same thing. By the time Clinton left the White House the Democratic Party was a subsidiary of the Clintons, with their guys in key positions. She has the rolodex, she has the fundraising capability. She has the will and the ability to make herself sound credible on any issue. No, Hillary is very very scary.

[Guest Boomhower]

No, Hillary is very very scary.

Scary indeed. Have you seen a picture of her lately? Heck, I won't even let my five year old look at her in fear that he'd have nightmares.

[fury2neon]

Looks like her donor list is filling up with people who need pardons again...

[Guest Len]

Ya gotta love this process:

1) Let it leak you are thinking about running.

2) Confirm in interview you are thinking about running.

3) Form exploratory committee to formalize the thinking about running part.

4) Have exploratory committee raise money, fire disgruntled workers and all other campaign activities except actual campaigning.

5) Drop hints about upcoming formal announcement, let that time go by.

6) Drop another set of hints about future formal announcement another month away.

7) Announce you will be making the formal announcement in a week.

7a) Announce that after you announce you'll be campaigning.

8) Repeat step 7/7a over and over again.

9) Announce

10) Hit the campaign trail

Meanwhile, while doing steps 1-8, have all other candidates beat themselves up while you sit on sidelines.

A cheap way to game the system & get the media doing your work for you, but it seems to turn some people off. Should be interesting to watch what happens.

[Marswolf]

Ya gotta love this process:

Yep. Pretty smart, isn't it?

[Guest c.a.s.]

HE also doesn't have so many of the restrictions that the others do.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, it is very clever. And that is my impression of Fred, that he is a very smart man. The caricature of him (as I heard today at kiddush) is that he is a lazy fool. That is the caricature you will see played up in the media. It's OK. They said that about Reagan too. He also played off it, saying "hard work never killed anyone but I'm not taking any chances."

Sorry that Len feels like that isn't cricket. But politics is a game played for keeps.

[Guest Len]

Len knows full well this is a big boys game -and has played it hard for 7 years now. Has the scars & war stories to prove it as well.

One can easily discern the level of "laziness" of a Senator by evaluating the record (or lack of one) of the person in question. Thompson's resume as a Senator is pretty slim, at best. Of course, this does not stop people from running (see Obama & Edwards for bipartisan examples -but their excuse could be they were not in long enough to make an impact. Thompson was.)

I have no doubt Thompson is very smart. The laziness is an issue I can't comment on. People have become president by doing less. I just don't see enough of a record one way or the other to pronounce Thompson the next conservative savior. (Or liberal savior or anything else, for that matter.)

Yes, it is very clever. And that is my impression of Fred, that he is a very smart man. The caricature of him (as I heard today at kiddush) is that he is a lazy fool. That is the caricature you will see played up in the media. It's OK. They said that about Reagan too. He also played off it, saying "hard work never killed anyone but I'm not taking any chances."

Sorry that Len feels like that isn't cricket. But politics is a game played for keeps.

[Marswolf]

All of the Republican Senators - Frist, Thompson, Alexander, and Corker's jobs were to change or keep Tennessee's Senate seats non-liberal. They all did their job.

Now Thompson's job is to keep the liberals from taking up residence in the White House in '09. That's liberals - not necessarily Democrats. I'll be working to help him succeed. If he gets the nomination, it will probably come down to Ohio. If he doesn't get the nomination....

[Guest Len]

Well, by that measure, Fred gets a better grade. There is the matter of McCain/Feingold, however. Generally scorned by the conservatives, but Thompson was a GOP floor manager for the bill as I recall...

Well no one's perfect, shoot, even Reagan was in a union once!

All of the Republican Senators - Frist, Thompson, Alexander, and Corker's jobs were to change or keep Tennessee's Senate seats non-liberal. They all did their job.

Now Thompson's job is to keep the liberals from taking up residence in the White House in '09. That's liberals - not necessarily Democrats. I'll be working to help him succeed. If he gets the nomination, it will probably come down to Ohio. If he doesn't get the nomination....

[The Rabbi]

Fred has already repudiated his vote on McCain Feingold. But I am sure the libs will bring that one up again and again.

[Guest Len]

And not just the libs & Dems. I can see several of the GOP candidates mentioning it a time or two between now and the primaries...

This is the classic reason why senators (sitting or otherwise) have such a hard time running for President. They have records they must defend. Governors by and large have an easier time of this as they have the ability to let bills become law without their signature. (Bredesen does this on occasion when he despises a bill but lacks the cajones to veto it.) Governors can also claim credit for every scrap of good news that comes out of their state when they sat in the statehouse.

Fred has already repudiated his vote on McCain Feingold. But I am sure the libs will bring that one up again and again.

[The Rabbi]

Agreed. The last senator to be elected president was some guy named Kennedy.

[DaveTN]

The only three candidates that I see having a chance are Hillary, Obama and Thompson.

<O:p</O:p

If Hillary or Obama is elected we as gun owners are in trouble. Obama wants to ban guns period. He openly says that he wants to ban all semi-automatics. There go most of our handguns and all of our evil black rifles. In reading statements by Obama, I’m not sure that be knows that semi-autos and assault weapons are not the same thing. But maybe he does.

<O:p</O:p

Hillary is every bit as anti-gun as he is; but she is older and wiser and knows that she should not make wild azz statements until after she is elected.

<O:p</O:p

In the last few years we have seen states implementing carry permits. While that certainly is not recognizing a Right; it is a step in the right direction. This election could put a serious damper on that.

[The Rabbi]

At one point in the last election Howard Dean looked unstoppable. So we can't tell now who will surprise. Maybe Richardson will make a surprise showing and become a front runner. I dunno.

Fortunately our guns are not dependent on who occupies the White House. No president can ban guns outright. They can try to pass laws to make things difficult but that's it.

If Hillary is nominated I do look forward to land-office sales of EBRs and such...

[fury2neon]

Fortunately our guns are not dependent on who occupies the White House. No president can ban guns outright. They can try to pass laws to make things difficult but that's it.

They can push to have the Second Amendment Repealed but that would go over like a lead balloon. Although there are a few candidates that I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.

[The Rabbi]

They can push to have the Second Amendment Repealed but that would go over like a lead balloon. Although there are a few candidates that I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.

They would still have the various state constitutions to deal with. And merely repealing the 2A itself would not mean a total ban, although it would certainly be a big step in that direction.

But I don't see it happening purely on political grounds: politicians want to get re-elected. The gun issue is of interest only to a small number of people. The pro-gun side, which turns out to vote, is rabid about it (look what happened to Jim Zumbo) while the anti side is much smaller and generally pretty tepid. It is a losing issue for them. They will get many more votes and have better ability to pass legislation by addressing, e.g. healthcare instead.

[DaveTN]

Fortunately our guns are not dependent on who occupies the White House. No president can ban guns outright.

That’s absolutely correct. But favors are owed and can be called in.

The SCOTUS has chosen (so far) not to hear cases where the question of the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> as an individual right will be answered. If they could be influenced to hear one of those cases, I suspect the ruling will open the door for states to ban whatever they like.

[The Rabbi]

That’s absolutely correct. But favors are owed and can be called in.

The SCOTUS has chosen (so far) not to hear cases where the question of the 2^nd as an individual right will be answered. If they could be influenced to hear one of those cases, I suspect the ruling will open the door for states to ban whatever they like.

Again, state legislatures would still have to contend with state constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. In TN the record is very clear that the legislature has no power to ban guns entirely, as that is inconsistent with the constitution. They could make it a real PITA though. Of course, they would end up getting rode out of town on a rail if they even tried.

[Guest crytes]

I still fail to see what any inteligent person really thinks they can acheive by disarming law abideing citizens. Or converting those that will not be disarmed into criminals. Do they just not sit down and think about it becouse if they did I doubt that would really be what they want. Any one know what the real agenda is or is it just one more way to grow goverment bigger?

Crytes