It seems to me that you're the one being silly. I believe Mr. Thompson was referring our military "fighting for the liberty and freedom of other peoples". Were those 20 million Soviets in the military fighting for other people or did they die of starvation or from being bombed by the Nazis? I'm sure that we would have lost in the millions too if the Nazis had made it to our shores and we hadn't stopped them in Europe. And I'm not agreeing with him that being on top is why people hate us. I'm just saying you're comparing apples to oranges.

As the old newspaper saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Fighting for "other peoples liberty and freedom" is in the eye of the beholder. A good portion of the world believes that most "adventures" in which U. S. Military blood was spilled since WWII have been for our neo-colonial self-interests, not to liberate others.

I'm certainly no Thompson or GOP supporter, but Stein's unambiguous dislike for the Tennessean has cluttered his mind.

First, I believe there is an inherent hate that comes along with being No. 1 (so to speak). Look at college football for an analogy. All fans outside of LA despise USC, as I do, but admittedly, its largely do to the fact that they have been so good for so long.

How about the rich? Have you honestly never seen hate for them solely because of their wealth?

Certainly not everyone hates America, as evidenced by our immigrant nation, but certainly there is hate for us in the world that stems primarily from the fact that we dominate the stage. It's a simple truth, in my opinion.

Secondly, the former Soviet Union certainly never had the democratic intentions America has had in fighting wars. I know, like the former Soviet Union, that we were fighting as much for survival in WWII as we were to spread freedom...But, surely, if it were not for us, the Jewish people would not have been liberated. And if anyone saw NG Explorer's excellent program "Inside North Korea" last night, they will understand how better off the South Koreans are for the lives Americans gave so they could be free (again, it's never as simple as this, I know, but it certainly accounts for much).

Let’s see - Overthrow of Iranian Republic to install brutal dictator, prop up champions of democracy like Pinochet, Marcos, Nguyen’s, Saudi family, the whole Contra thing… That's just the last 50 years!!!
Sorry – that doen’t get that Right Wing fervor going does it? As a matter of fact, let’s just keep on the same foreign policy that we have done for the last 50 years because it has brought us to such a great point in time.
As for the bit about saving Europe, lots of folk remember that, but how many even know who the Marquis de Lafayette was? They would probably answer that it was the sign on that old theater on Lafayette Street.
You get what you give and we get it in spades!

You are right Jonning, Mitt would be a lot better than Freddy.

Since when did "facts" have anything to do with the GOP campaign strategy?
Colbert will tell you it has "truthiness" and that's all that matters.
Not to mention:
Careful when you attack a conservative for being incorrect, hypocritical, or pandering to patriotic impulses. You victimize them with "elitist liberal media" ball busting; that only makes them more attractive.

As much as anyone may admire - like me - many of the accomplishments that can be attributed to the USA and its people, I do not think that most informed people around the globe willingly ignore whatever place the US has earned in history and automatically translate that into hatred. Mr. Thompson's comment is so overly simplistic that it is hard to understand why many americans may want to settle for such reasoning. What often upsets people -like myself- is that comments like those made by Mr. Thompson (and the applauses of the TV plateau) seem to be just too deeply ingrained into the minds of just too many North Americans. Such naive thinking overrules the capacity to be reasonably realistic about what the US really is about, its strengths and its weaknesses, its capabilities and challenges, and therefore its real place and role in todays comples world. History and reputation is fluid and changing, the last word has not been said yet yet(nor would I dare to propose one), but what americans should not ignore is that the US is indeed (so it's perceived) losing "gas" on many fronts, its political leaders are, to put it mildly, very mediocre (by US and world's standards) and to a very large degree directly responsible for the growing anti-american sentiment. The average american voter is not too versed on world affairs and would -understandably- rather not be responsible for this state-of-affairs either, but it is their vote that ultimately helps elect the US government and because their country is indeed a powerful nation it has an effect on the rest of the planet. That politicians increasingly tend to resort to such patriotic "god-bless-america" and "my-country-right-or-wrong" type of populist rhetoric is only but a symptom that confirms precisely what Mr. Thompson would like to ignore or deny. Anti-american feeling has increased allarmingly, particularly so since President Bush came into office, in spite of the great sympathy and solidarity that the tragic 9/11 events created world-wide. He is greatly disliked and many foreigners despair when some americans can´t see why that may be or just how tarnished is his government and hence his country's reputation now, not 50 years ago. Granted, the US is strong militarily, (though obviously quite stuck in Iraq), the land of the opportunity (unfortunately much less so), rich (well...more poverty and inequality than in many West European nations) but this is not the point either. This is not a contest. The world at large would rather welcome a more transparent, knowledgeable, honest, one-to-one relationship with the US government in order to deal responsibly with today's alarming and mounting global issues. Just or unjust, like it or not, America´s image and credibility has deteriorated sharply. Not coming to terms with this reality is so foolish that it is embarrasing to US friends and allies. Many americans and foreigners alike see the need for real change. The fact that there are poorer countries, less efficient economies, more corrupt leaders elsewhere, etc., does not white-wash the uglier side of America and the ugly side is there. The evil of others doesn´t make one's own evils better. Though I find Jay Leno witty, etc., choosing to make an announcement about one's own candidacy for such an important job on such a "shallow" venue troubles me deeply. This is not funny. Whoever inherits Mr. Bush's job has one of the most challenging and daunting tasks any one could conceive. The stakes are too high. Larger "empires" than the US have sunk to oblivion. "Counting" dead soldiers (terrible!)or "measuring" greatness is not dealing with the issues.

He is correct about the people hating us. They hate us because we're the strongest and most powerful, that's a given. We're also hated because we pushed our way into Iraq against the advice of all other countries, we've brutually murdered and killed iraqi civilians and tortured prisoners... and we're arrogant jerks.

America is suffering more and more from the 'we're the best' syndrome. We just shows our snobbery. Which leads to hate.

But, it is true. We DO have the best military, but we're far from losing the most blood.

Tony - I agree with much of your post. However, how informed, really, are people around the globe? I'm not sure they're any more informed than the average American voter you speak of. And because of misinformation, people across the globe are susceptible to the broad, free-ranging vitriol for America that clouds much of the reality of who we are as a nation. This, in my opinion, contributes as much to conflict as does many Americans' own misunderstandings of the facts. Of course, our own evils should not be dismissed because there is worse in the world, But the difference is that many of us recognize our faults, while such admission seems taboo and completely non-existent in certain places. While we can change our government, change who are leaders are, many people in the world cannot and will not.

"How about the rich? Have you honestly never seen hate for them solely because of their wealth?"

I might admire the rich. Well, not reaaly. I might envy the rich once in a while. Hate the rich just for being rich? No. I might, however, hate them for HOW they got rich. That is possible.

People who earned their wealth are not abdominable, and should be admired.

People who got wealthy on rigged financial games, inheritances, exploiting the Third World (by force, with death squads and soldiers and CIA), and other immoral "earnings" deserve no respect. Who respects armed robbery?

Oops, I meant abominable. :)

Oops, I meant "not abominable". :)

Johnathan Stein hearts Stalin.

They hate us because we do the bidding of Israeli gangsters and beat up on third world Muslim brothers.
The Jews buy our politicians with their political contributions, not to mention that at least 25% of the media is highly influenced by the Jew's outright ownership(e.g. NYT) or the Jewish editors and etc. Europe is not this way. That is why the European Parliament condemned Israel as worse than the old South Africa. No more wars for Israel.

My name is Buddy Hinton, International Ballrom Dancing Sensation.I think Fred Thompson is a rightwing nut!

Come now everyone understands the reasons they give for the hatred of America ( the Western Culture). It is the ( in the eyes of the more radicals) the U.S. has very low or no morals. Some of the reasons are the same for some in the U.S., the corporate ambivalence to life, human welfare. To a lot of Americans the dollar is God. Like most peoples of any country, the ones that they see from other nations are the corporations and the political or religious leaders and the rest is judged by that what they see. Not the majority of people, the real people. This is true on both sides. Most Americans are loving and understanding people and the same with most people of every country.

The war in Iraq, IMHO, has always been about Oil/Money. There was never any threat from Iraq as to our national security, no involvement in 9/11, or any of the many other FALSE reasons given. Nick, I agree that a majority of people around the world want basicly the same things, and it is the leaders that think they must have enemies to succeed.

Mr. Stein is- and has always been- free to relocate to any of the few remaining Stalinist 'paradises' left on Earth, if he finds their policies so admirable, so ennobling, and ours so distasteful.

Sadly, those who were imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain had no such luxury.

Mr. Stein is- and has always been- free to relocate to any of the few remaining Stalinist 'paradises' left on Earth, if he finds their policies so admirable, so ennobling, and ours so distasteful.

Sadly, those who were imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain had no such luxury.

Let me just add something to J's and Nick's, etc. comments:
1) J: You are right. This is why I started with "...most informed people...". It is an undeniable truth that the freedoms (in spite of its imperfections) enjoyed in the US (and in most European nations) are not to be found much elsewhere. And, unfortunately, the lack of it, the poverty, the ignorance, etc., in a sizeable portion of our planet, all of it, lends itself to manipulation by "propagandists" who use fanatical distortions of the truth, often for political purposes and, sadly, for very evil purposes too. In many of those countries (where we assume that there is such un-informed fanatical anti-american feeling) the fact is that much of the population does not really know what the U.S., the real country, is about. How true. This is just so. But one can't really blame them. Can we?
My question is: Do we have to presuppose that these people should know what suburbia america is about, or the merits of a society where the rule of law and certain fundamental truths about freedom have (pretty much so) deep seated roots in the system? People's image of America is, however, much governed by externalities and half truths as much as the image that americans may have about, for example, Spain is about flamenco and bull-fighting which is far from reality. The difference is that the spanish government's (note:Spain ranks about 10th in world GDP terms) policy does not have the impact, or relevance, in the American news, that the US Government's policy and actions have on the local news in Spain. Hence, with more power comes more responsibility, visibility and exposure. American's should understand that for most of the world an american actor, from an X state, on an X TV show, is a nobody. This not meant as an insult. It is just a fact. I had seen his face... just because I have live and studied in the U.S., watch the better half of american movies and tv series, and I am personally interested in international affairs and read almost daily NYT, the WP, MOJO, etc..along with international European and Asian press. But I don't expect others to do the same. I am just an interested and concerned observer. Well informed (here I go again), and resonably educated people in Europe, who travel to the US regularly might not only not even know him but, more likely than not, they will not take as serious someone with his background, specially if he dismisses the fact that there is a "hate america" frenzy out there, by resorting to "they hate us because we are so big, so great and so good " When I was in High School (American one at that) do you think I liked the bullish type in class becaused he flexed his big muscles and showed off the prettiest girls in class. That inmature attitude generates negative feelings. That's how Thomson's comments may sound like to some, and even if his vision of America was to be the exact one (I think they are, at best, half-truths), he should be wiser than stating just that. (I know that this was for American consumption and all that...but believe me...it was on the news last night, and it didn´t sound good, and I am in Europe, not in the US!.Message given between the lines here was "Could this man saying this type of thing be the next US president...well, in the US everything is possible, specially inpolitics...look at California's governor. Believe me, most people do not think that playing Exterminator and being Mr. Universe is sort of the best schooling for top politial jobs, even if married into the right family, nor that Reagan was that great of an actor or president"). If there is an anti-american feeling around, even if it is partly based on some real reasons or perceptions and partly based on lies and half-truths, it is an issue to be dealt with seriously. To many Europeans Clinton and Gore, (and I am not endorsing them or anything) for example, are more likeable. They come accross, particularly Clinton, as more international, savy, and know how to move about in a way that doesn't arouse the feelings that for example GWB or Rumsfeld or Chenney do. Europeans, for example, do not attach the importance to, for example, Clintons's admitted sexual adventures or about his allegged cover-up (who in Europe would not cover that up specially if you are married and president), but Europeans get a bad stomach ache in seeing GWB getting away with lies, when the lives of many humans, american and foreign, are at stake. (In Europe, for example, violence on TV or films is a worse sin than explicit sex images. Reason: Sex is natural and healthy but violence is very bad. So, Europeans, at large, see things differently than many "conservative" americans. Are Europeans inmoral? Perhaps. But doesn't the Bible comdemn violence?). The leaders of Europe's most pro-US countries would like to see a change too. Publicy they don´t say it out loud, but privately they would love to see an administration and a president that can actually pronounce a country or a foreign president's name correctly. It is actually expected that they should know this basic stuff. And that's just for starts.
2) And now, about the average american citizen's knowledge about foreign affairs or, even, about plain geography, let me just say this: Except for the big newspapers from the US top 4 or 5 cities, just go to the web-site of most if not all of the other major cities newspapers and see how much space is dedicated to international news and the depth with which these events are treated. Now, do the same with newspapers accross Europe. The difference is significant. Europeans are more exposed through TV and the press to international events than americans are. This is not a sin all on itw own...but if the american voter knew a little bit more about world affairs and america´s role in them, perhaps their vote would be more meaningful. America needs, deserves, to have a world class president, a real statesman, and a whole political class that can stand up to the task. We live in a more dangerous world and in a more feeble planet than what we thought only a few years ago.
2)To Nick: I agree with you. Of course, most Americans are nice people and so are most people of China, even Iraq. Unfortunately, the nice people in the US are now paying the price of how the US is perceived abroad and it's their government's job to do the best to help rectify that. There is no need for anyone to crawl asking for fogiveness and mercy. What is needed is serious people, who say and who do the right things and who can measure more accurately the true consequences of their actions. (GWB and his "team" are not precisely a good example of that). You know what: Bush's IRAQ adventure has just about foreclosed the possibility of getting involved in another hotspot where there could actually be a very real need for doing so. Fighting Al Qaeda and the whole range Islamic fundmentalists on their own battle "ground" sounds pretty stupid to me. And it is their job to know better. That's what they are paid and elected for.
3) I read MOJO to contrast my source of news. My personal experience of US journalism is that it just fell captive to "all behind the president because we are at war" after 9/11. My personal experience too is that it kind of started to change more noticeably, particularly in TV, just about when Katrina took place. It is also my personal experience that there are many concerned and good american citizens who are raising their voices. But my fear, and MOJO is a good source for similar opinions, is that american main stream politics is too much in the hands of money and other hidden forces and interests. European parlimentary democracy has some advantages, even if it diminishes presidential authority.
4) To Korosh: Stop blaming Jews for everything. There is Arab money everywhere too. ¿Where do you think they invest their "hard earned" petro dollars in the sand? You be surprised how much of american real state, corporations and wealth is in the hands of Arabs, of how much of your deficit is financed by the Chinese trade surplus. The middle east is more complex than that. First arabs do not traditionally agree among themselves, not even palestinians do. Israel is full of nice people and also some morons, like anywhere else. But if you were an Israeli - and looking back at history - I guess one would be kind of worried to be surrounded by enemies all the time. A solution has to be found. Yes, hopefully, but not at the expense of either of the two peoples, Palestinians or Israelis. Europeans are more ambivalent about it because some European nations do a lot of business in countries like Iran, etc. This is European machiavelism. Practical and often much more cynical.
5) To lylepinke: You'd be surprised. Most people in Europe think is all about money. Personally (and this is not good news) I am afraid that there is some element of the war in Iraq that is really connected to a "messianic type of belief" that freeing Iraq of a despotit criminal like Hussein would help put things on a better track. You can´t impose democracy always ( in spite of post WWII Germany of Japan) not does war or collateral damage get much sympathy. But I guess you are right, in the end there has to be something about oil in the end. Iraq was no immediate threat to the US. What about Iran? That's a tough cookie for the next US government or Europe.
6) To Dan: True. A lot of wealth in the US is built on hard work and human invention. That can be admired, at least respected. I do. Lately, however, wealth is all too often linked to especulation, complex or "doubtful" financial operations, etc. Getting rich without creating real economic value, even if done on the borderline of what's legal, does not deserve respect.
Interesing to read all the comments. And it all started with Jay Leno. Who was the other guy??? Fred something! Ups. I'd say: Jay Leno for president. By this token, why not? He seems friendly, evidently has a quick and sharp mind, and can, at least, make us laugh. :-)

Had to add this, sorry:
It doesn´t seem from his words that Mr. Stein is advocating Stalinism or anything close to that. The poor and oppressed people of that country called then the USSR had to suffer the full cruelty of the Nazi invasion who only lookd at them, according to the ethnic purist visions of the Nazi nuts, as "untermenschen", the "belowpeople", worthless people. Stalin or not, this people suffered horribly and many millions of people, soldiers included, died. Ironically enough, had Nazi strategists played it right, if they had invaded with the purpose of supporting an upheaval of the Soviet citizens, there is a chance, (so say historians) that they would have encountered support. Who knows?
I think Mr. Stein reacts to the "america-is-hollier-than-thy" rhetoric remembering that other people have died and suffered too. It's however, significant, that he, Mr. Stein, resorts to WWII, without there being any direct mention of that in Mr. Thompson's comment. Could it be that in the mind of Mr. Stein he has to go back to WWII to find a "just cause" in American wars? I only suggest this. But this could be symptomatic of what I think is "Vietnam's syndrome". American wars after WWII, except, who knows, perhaps Korea, are not as crystal clear "good vs. evil" as WWII was. (and then, wasn't Sadam Hussein, a similar monster...yes that's so...and then I start getting confused...but what about the Iraqui's....they suffered then...they suffer now, what then?)
Having said that, Mr.Stein's point is, however, wrong in the sense that the USSR government's reason for fighting the east front, beyond the possibly justifiable reasons of self-defense, were not for the sake of freedom (He has split up Poland with Hitler before that). Staling had no such noble intentions. He ended up imposing Soviet rule in half or Europe. Stalin was a "butcher". The 20 million who died that he refers to were 20 million people not 20 million Stalins. I think there is no purpose either in a contest of "let's count the dead" to see who is the world's no.1 freedom fighter.
And having said that, let's not forget either that Churchill and FDR pretty much gave all that up that at Yalta.
My father flew Spitfires (that's on the allied side) and he decided to quit a few days after Berlin surrendered. He had to fly in over Berlin and his impression then was "how well have we (the allies) learned anihilation, even if the Germans started it".
That's why Nagasaki is so much harder to swallow that Hiroshima...but that's another topic, ...he who is free of sin let hims cast a stone.... There are no perfectly innocent governments..only victims. They stare at us. Perhaps they should write history not the winners, and certainly not hollywood script writers.

Good conversation here. More than what is happening in our political system.
The Right preaches that with freedom comes responsibility. Same goes for power (a la Spiderman). Unfortunately our foreign policy just wields the power and takes no responsibility.
Ever go to a bar and there is a drunk guy in a nice suit, knocking back top shelf whiskey, buying bottles of champagne and talking about all the money he makes? Well, other people in the bar don’t like him – not because he is rich, but because he is acting like an ass. That is essentially how we are seen by the rest of the world.

Subguns.com GOP type's full of Traitors, Cowards and Weakling Boy Lovers.Since you express mostly "right wing" opinions on here, NOBODY would accept that you were ME, since I do not advocate the attitudes of the rightwing.

YOU DEMONSTRATE (for ALL of us to see) THAT right wingers have NO Ethics, no Morals, and will USE ANY MEANS to FORCE your "mentality" down our throat, no matter if you have to Cheat, LIE and commit MONIKER THEFT. It IS truly a form of "THEFT", which easily demonstrates what is WRONG about your entire Party. Your CEO's loot & rob everything in sight.

Also, you demonstrate that you lack imagination if you feel you can only post by "identity theft" and "moniker theft". This does not help your political side OR your credibility one bit.

Go Mitt Romney. He is the best.

Sure Ginger, if you're looking for a neocon warhawk, who doesn't mind exhibiting 3rd grade behavior in disrespecting a fellow debate participant (Ron Paul) by laughing into an open mic as Paul began most of his responses, he's your man.

no gvc, Mitt is very handsome. I think that I am in love with him. Mary Ann is too. Go Mitt!

Great decision-making criteria for a presidential vote.

I tend to use things other than looks to choose who I back in politics, like whether I think they'll actually honor their oath of office for one.

I read Ginger's "Go Mitt Romney" comment, above, with interest. Granted, by the feeblish reputation of F. Thompson, Mitt Romney seems to have a better resumé. So much for that.

However, one of the most abused - and, for me, confusing - topics of American politics is actually linked to one of Romney's baseline campaign lines. He talks about drawing on the spirit of the american people..the hope of the world...but don´t look to government..got to make it smaller...and the people stronger...". In other words, the recurring issue of big versus small government (Take a look at his official web-site)

What in the world does this mean? Sounds poetic to me, utopian, metaphoric, mesmerizing, americanish, but, gosh, how can anybody buy such meaningless slogans.

Americans should no longer be concerned with "big" governments but start being more concerned with what governments can and should do for them... in real and concrete terms. The "big" versus "small" is no longer a valid reference. It's vague and, by the looks of it, highly illusory.
It's time for some iconoclastic assertiveness. Have no fear and start asking your politicians on the campaign trail some tough questions.

Take a look, for instance, at the current administration's record on the front of civil liberties and the fundamental rights that americans have so proudly fought and stood for? In my mind this government is not precisely SMALL, on the contrary, it has been a huge one, very "BIG", to the point of literally abusing and tinkering with some of the fundamental principles and liberties that the American Constitution and the legacy of decades of legislation and policy stand for. Only very big and very powerful governments can get away with so much with so little regard for what Romney calls the "strong" people.

For example, the current administration is running the biggest deficit - which literally means spending a chunk of your future income - and, again, that's supposed to be small government. GWB and his party's "small" government campaign forebodings have grossly mismanaged just about everything there is to mismanage. In the corporate world this is called mismanagement and gross misrepresentation.

Can anybody point out what this admnistration has REALLY accomplished in 7 years?

If big and small is, for instance, only an issue of taxes then let's keep in mind that this government has taxed more of your future earnings than any other previous government. On top, it grossly mismanages those funds...,your money, on lost causes and projects.

"Big" or "small" government, are just political shells devoid of meaningful content. It diverts the attention of the electorate from the real issues by stirring primitive fears.
Never has the US been in such a desperate need for "good" government as now. The whole political system has to be cleaned and re-booted. Something like cleaning your PC of cookies, ad-ware and miscellaneous trash files to improve performance. Democracy is the best known anti-virus to get rid of bad leadership but it has to be updated and run regularly to be effective. The low voter turn-out and the questionable issues at the polling stations in the last elections is a sign of a possible system malfunction. It's time to download a system upgrade or something. It is doable.