We need a leader.

Reagan slept through his presidency thus allowing the whole Iran-Contra situation and the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq.

Thompson is a good actor. I think we all loved him in Hunt for Red October and of course he has his loyal Law and Order following too......but this is NOT a set-this is real life, and no one will be writing a script.

No doubt Republicans are hoping his quipping will make him a shoe in for president-but the fact is that he is lipstick on the republican pig.

I cannot believe how easily another republican actor is taking the lead position with absolutely ZERO real credibility for the job.

Yes, Thompson was a hoot in Red October and man is he tough on the bad guys on Law and Order.....he sure can read a script with conviction....now how does that qualify him to lead a nation again?

That is funny. The liberal lemmings espouse presidential candidates that have dabbled in the field of thespianism as unqualified, they continue to heap adulation on the idiot court jesters that run their mouths during movie press junkets, on the red carpets of all important movie premiers and self-worshiping awards shows.

The darlings of the left like Streisand, Clooney, Sarandon, Sheen, Penn etc-- you know the list goes on have somehow gained credibility because the have the memorization skills of your average 13 year old, the looks that sell movies and the adoration of Oprah's masses.

Pahleese. Hollywood experience neither qualifies you nor disqualifies you as a candidate, spokesperson for ANY cause or public service in general.

Reagan slept through his presidency? Wow. Somehow he managed to get more done while napping than Clinton did whilst getting his freak on in the Oval office, more than Johnson did listening to that crazy wife of his, more than Kennedy banging everything with a hole in it (no wonder Willie adored him, oh don't even bring Carter into this.

FDR had to be begged into joining WW2 despite the fact that he knew full well the genocide that was taking place in Eruope.

Maybe more of us ought to take these alleged naps.

Lets see here.....Republicans are the ones who bash Hollywood and entertainment in general while running them for president. Liberals may agree with the message an artist gives, but rarely do we run them for office. But you and I agree that this doesnt qualify or disqualify a candidate-in fact I find it amusing that it is generally the few conservative actors who do get your adulation---Ahhnold and Ronnie were both a lot more liberal than you would prefer and they are both products of Hollywood......go figure.....

But you really are heaping undeserved praise on Reagan. He had NOTHING to do with the downfall of Russia other than being there when the money ran out for them....he did not create and act on a strategy-he just kept following the one that was in place-although you do need to ask why he wasnt worried about nukes and rouge states in those days...it was the breakup of the Soviet Union which made nukes available to anyone with enough money....how about THAT victory for capitalism?

As for Kennedy, he AVOIDED a war with Russia and actually showed the US and the world photographic proof of Russian missiles (WMD) while many years later your clown used a powerpoint and sock puppetts to start a war which has outlasted WWII (another war in which a DEM president managed to win on two fronts in less time).

So dont even TRY to pretend you guys did anything. All you're good at is stealing money from the people and lying.

"So dont even TRY to pretend you guys did anything. All you're good at is stealing money from the people and lying"

I love how everyone is saying the Repub's are corrupt this and corrupt that....apparently you have never heard of the great political Democratic Machine that is the State of New Jersey.......... its laughable to even suggest that one party has a monoply on corruption over the other....

Ohhh and umm Reagan won the cold war by breaking "detente" with the Soviest. Not bad for a lousy actor.

Go Fred.

Yep, the end of the 90's was a much better time for the USA than the end of the 80's. Plus I don't see any democrats who think George Clooney and Barbara Streisand's political opinions are worth anything. Let's take a poll...any democrats feel those Hollywood liberals making political speeches are admirable? I think those celebrities are self-important sorts of people. They do it for themselves not the audience.

Go Fred?

The guy took this long just to get into the race. He cant even attend a debate because he was more comfortable with Jay Leno.

Go Fred?

Lets put him in a situation where there is no script and actual competition. Lets make him actually tell us what he stands for besides the platititudes. This aint Hunt for Red October, son. This is the REAL world.

Ahahahaha! Wow do you have your views askew or what? Then again, you must be a republican so you really can't see the forest through the trees.

Why are the republicans the first in line to bash "That Hollywood Crowd" yet also the first [and ONLY] to elect Actors to higher office? I guess the real questions here are "Why don't you practice what you preach?" or " Why do you all get so starry eyed and gaga like a little puppy that pees itself when you're around actors?" You see, your entire post has no credibility based on the actions of the past by your party. What you had to say is nonsense we have witnessed over and over again over many years. And I mean 100% predictable and since life is too short to cry about it, we Dems and Liberal Independants prefer to laugh at you and yours because, not only are you 100% predictable, but you never learn or change and we watch you do it over and over again.

Now, I'm not knocking Thompson; he gave some "oscar-winning" speeches lately but I liked him a whole lot more in Die Hard 2! And think on this, what if he really turns out to be one of the evil characters he played on screen if he [very unlikely] were elected to the presidency? Like in Class Action? But he did play an Admiral in The Hunt for Red October! (Easy people! I'm trying to build Fred's resume to qualify him for the POTUS position!)

Then again I kind of like Michael Douglas's style in The American President or Harrison Ford in Air Force One; talk about handling a crisis!

But the only Actor who I think is qualified the most to play-er-I mean- be elected to the Presidency would have to be Martin Sheen for the sheer number of years he successfully steered the West Wing. Why, there is only one person who is running for president now who has more actual, real time, real schenario experience [ 8 years] in the White House and that is Hillary Clinton.

Ahahahahahaaaaaa!

See you on Law and Order, Fred. Where you belong.

I think you should look at his work investigating the Clinton Gore 96 campaign and his work during Watergate.

Yeah! "Go Fred!" Back to 'Law and Order' because your talent for the Big Screen and D.C. just does not cut the mustard. Stick with the gig you're good at.

Yes and found nothing. Good work. Go back to 'Law & Order"

By the way I am not saying I am going to vote for the guy, he is just not the lightwieght that everyone is making him out to be because he happened to make some money as a character actor.......

Found nothing? He only declared it the most corrupt campaign in history....all of which will rear its ugly head once again if that "shrieking" idiot wins the nomination......it has already come up again.

I'm not sold on Thompson, but as for his qualifications: he served in the U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2003, about as long as the frontrunner for the Democrats has. One thing his resume doesn't include is making a total mess out of trying to socialize national healthcare.

Clinton was a very successful candidate if you measure it in terms of the average Americsans' requirements. A good job (where you make enough to keep your home and still save a little) is something which all who work diserve-republicans instead fight to keep the minimum wage as low as possible because (gosh) small business would be impacted in a negative way (which is a lie since employees are a business cost-a write off fot the business--any impact would be for one year at best and most businesses file their taxes quarterly). Clinton oversaw massive growth in jobs paying a good wage while job growth under Bush (after massive job loss) is mainly in those very minimum wage jobs which dont pay enough for the average person to survive without more.

Clinton's foreign policy saw no major wars and only involvement which made sense like taking down the genocidal Milosivich and fighting chaos and lawlessness in Somalia (and I just love how cons point to Somalia as if Clinton was the one who had bad maps and poor support for the Blackhawk--seems to me our "expert" troops and their "expert" leaders f-cked up and want to blame Clinton for putting them there--still we lost few people there-Bush's war is over 3500 and thats just dead Americans.

Terrorism has been around a long time but was seen as the acts of a small burt fanatical group of people (and Tim McVeigh was American FYI). Clinton saw his portion of terror as have most presidents-he handled it as well as anyone and guess what-the first WTC bombers are in jail and Tim McVeigh was executed for his terror attack. Bush's war has become the Alamo battle cry which unites terrorists and increases their numbers-now they point to Iraq and say America is indeed an invading imperialist nation after the oil in the middle east-before there was no evidence to support their claims-Bush has changed all that and the result is many many more terrorists, more supporters who see a logic to the terroeist claims based on our presence in Iraq, and has the terrorism been stopped? Nope.

So massive economic success for the middle and working class is negative? Avoiding massive debt and war is negative? Going after the correct terrorists and jailing or killing them is bad? I call that a successful presidency.

You are prepared to call Clinton bad because (gasp) he had sex with a consenting adult and lied about it to a republican "Get Clinton" fishing expedition. All it took the cons was several million of your tax dollars and wasted time to prove Clinton got head. Bravo.

Bush lied to us to start a war-he said there were WMD ready to be used on us and there were none. He said there was a connection to 911 and there was none. He refused to testify under oath about any of those topics and he has refused to testify under oath about the potential connections to Saudi Arabia (his family is financially tied to Saudi Arabia in a major way). I am supposed to believe that he is perfectly honest (even though he wont take the oath) and I am supposed to believe that he didnt know there were no WMD when he said there were. But hey, he didnt have sex so all the damage he did is OK. Clintin did a great job as president but he had sex, so that makes him a bad president.

The logic of a neocon is simply non-existent. Unless of course you just parrott what your radio and TV talking heads tell you to.