Fred Thompson not pandering yet in FL

Prospective Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson spoke to the Hillsborough Bar Association Foundation tonight in Tampa but, weirdly, his people barred the media from covering the speech. The actor and former Tenn. senator did take a few minutes to talk with the press beforehand, including the Times' Bill Varian. Among the questions: Would Thompson support a national catastrophic fund to help alleviate the property insurance crisis facing Florida and other states?

"That's Florida's issue,'' said Thompson, adding that he might look further into it if he winds up jumping into the presidential race. More here.

Comments

About time a R cared about state v fed issues again.

www.explorehuckabee.com

[GOP Evangelical]

I am going to vote for either Fred or Huckabee.

[Tom Berlinger]

So...let me see. Democratic candidates "campaign" and visit with their constituents, but popular Republican candidates "pander." Sure doesn't sound like Fair and Balanced to me.

[Z]

The brave sentinels of the press were "weirdly" barred from the speech, and that elicited a "panties in a wad" moment, hence the use of "pandering." Sort of a snit in print. "Well, you won't let us in so we're going to say something nasty about you!"

But Fox News does? Moron.

"That's Florida's issue"?! Damn right, and that's why we're asking you! If you want Floridians to support you, you'd better have the right answer.

[politicalspectator]

Fred Thompson = Libertarian?

Insurance issues are Florida's problem? You got that right. Fred's suggesting that we solve it ourselves. That would definitely be a innovative idea. He's got my vote.

I am thrilled he didn't allow the media in - it is a private event and there was no need for them to be there. Sunshine has gone to the heads of reporters and they think they are entitled to be everywhere.

This man, if you read the full story, has all the right answers...and he has had these positions for years. He has my vote, hands down.

I have to admit, as Stephen Colbert did, President Huckabee sounds adorable.

Wasn’t “Huckabee” the name of the purple Teletubby?

Huckabee doesn't deserve a place on a blog about Fred. They are in totally different stratospheres, with Fred being a real contender.

Seems like Huckabee is a real contendor...

"The former governor of Arkansas seemed presidential. On the stage with him were his equals, not his betters."
- The National Journal

“I thought the person that helped themself the most was Mike Huckabee… Yes, but I think he came close to entering the top tier or really elevating himself. First of all, he was a good personality, a very relaxed, warm presence. Second thing, he actually branded himself. You know, you've got 10 guys up there. Distinguish yourself. And he actually distinguished himself as sort of a populist, straight-talking person from out in the country.”
-David Brooks

“But individually, who really stood out? If you knew nothing about this race except what you saw tonight, I suspect you would guess the three leading candidates were Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.”
-Yuval Levin, National Review

As more and more people get to know Governor Huckabee... He'll gain more and more traction... I hear he'll be introducing himself to Floridians next Saturday night!

The Republican Party is over, nationally. Everything they attempt has been a disaster, starting with the Iraq fiasco. This is not leadership.
They simply tell more lies to attempt a cover-up of the previous lies. Huckabee, Romney, Thompson and the rest of the pack will continue the lies and the violence. They are all garbage.

[12:11's Innter Monolog]

I hate Republicans. They're mean. They're icky. I don't like them. They start wars and hurt people. They're greedy bad people. I'm a good person. But I'm not going to say anything nice about them. And nobody can go out and play until all the Republicans are gone.

the huck-man!

jest what we need

a southernbap'ist who doesnt believe in evolution.

in other words, someone too ignorant to understand that theology and science are NOT IN COMPETITION!

next time you see huckie, ask him WHICH of the TWO CREATION stories in genesis he believes?

watch the smoke come out of his ears as his miniscule brain short circuits!!

"There shall be no religious test to be President of the United States." You, 1:57, are a bigot.

WASHINGTON
In a nation where 91 percent of citizens profess to believe in God, it's a safe bet we won't see an atheist in the White House anytime soon.
But what about a president who doesn't believe in Darwin? And are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?
These are the questions that (still) trouble men's souls. And still cause trouble for presidential candidates forced unfairly to essentially choose between God and science.
In the "gotcha" question of the first GOP debate, journalist Jim VandeHei, relaying a citizen's question, asked Arizona Senator John McCain: "Do you believe in evolution?"
A natural response might have been, "Well, that depends on how you define evolution." It would seem that Clintonian nuance is off the boards for now. Instead, McCain gambled and said — no doubt with fear and trembling in his political heart — "Yes."
Next VandeHei asked: Is there anyone on the stage who doesn't believe in evolution? Three raised their hands — Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
As debate audiences were pondering the meaning of Darwin in the Oval Office, McCain asked permission to elaborate. McCain then added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."
Note to George Tenet: This is what you call a slam dunk. McCain was able to acknowledge science and religion — evolutionary theory and creationism — and make them mutually inclusive. Some may call that "fence-straddling" or "having it both ways," but political observers call it "Bingo!" The others weren't so fortunate. Like little boys called to the front of the class, Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback immediately became targets of ridicule by the educated elite who were presented with a contradiction: If Darwin was right, how did these knuckle-draggers make it to the presidential campaign podium?
The truth is, each man took a calculated risk — or a courageous stand, depending on one's view. To say "yes" would have been to betray evangelical Christian voters, 73 percent of whom believe that human beings were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years or so.
To these folks, "no" didn't mean anti-science; it meant pro-God and conveyed a transcendent, non-materialistic view of the world. To secular Darwinists, "no" meant either ignorance or pandering to the ignorant — most likely both.
On its surface, the question seems simple enough — if oddly out of century. Darwin's theory of evolution isn't exactly hot off the presses. But it remains controversial among some people of faith — including some respected scientists — for whom evolutionary theory reduces man's world to a godless accident bereft of moral meaning.
To the faithful, in other words, it is not such a simple question. It also was not a fair question under the circumstances. Yes or no doesn't quite cover the complex issues implicit in any mention of Darwin these days.
In a conversation after the debate, Huckabee said, "I wish life were so simple. If it were, we'd be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign. . . . If I'd had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution?"
That's a different sort of answer than what is inferred from a simple "no" forced by the manic pace of a 90-minute "debate" among 10 candidates, none of whom is qualified to seriously debate scientific theory. Nor, as president, should they try. In fact, Huckabee says he does believe in evolution (with qualifications) and thinks Darwin's theory should be taught in schools.
"I do know that species do, in fact, adapt and there are many instances of adaptation and mutation," he said, "but I still believe that the design has a designer and the creation has a creator. I wouldn't pretend to fill in the blanks between what God created and what is today."
Microevolution and macroevolution can't be properly distilled in this space, but, broadly speaking, micro allows for the possibility of a creator.
These are interesting and complex issues that compel smart, thoughtful people to passionate debate and serious investigation.
The debate question was fundamentally a setup for ridicule. No one was served, and no one, alas, is the wiser.
My opinion
Kathleen Parker

KP creates a FALSE choice and is full of KRAP!

science and creation are NOT in competition
PERIOD!!

there is NO DEBATE necessary.

science is imperical.
faith is NOT imperical.

PERIOD!!

being informed and intelligent enough to know that there are TWO DIFFERENT creation stories separated by AT LEAST 500 YEARS and expecting someone running for president of the united states of american to be intelligent and informed enough to know that also does not make anyone a bigot.

it means simply that some of us have standards higher than the typical mouth-breathing fundamentalist.

thank you!

[Mascotte]

I hear there was one member of the news media there. Watch frontpageflorida.com. I bet they report.

[Claude]

Anybody know who is running/heading up Florida program for the Senator?
I might want to join up.