[Calpernia]

I remember the controversy that happened with the Hunter Campaign when he ran issue ads in New Hampshire:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/02/hunters_campaig.html
Hunter’s campaign ads may violate campaign laws

The ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1L4MsmUGM
Duncan Hunter on the Border Fence

[Calpernia]

Emphasis: Fred is trying to distance himself from his involvement in the CFR. AJ caught him in a bold faced lie and has called him on it

Ok, carry on.

[upsdriver]

Am I right to assume that Fred Thompson was to the left of Arlen Specter?

[KoRn]

Yet another hit piece. How special.

[Poser]

I thought Hunter was a good guy, deserving consideration for VP. I guess not.

[davidosborne]

The only thing I was trying to do is list the PUBLIC supporters of each candidate.. I never intended to start a war.. If Hitlary was generating a list of Duncan Hunter supporters, personally I would LOVE to be on the TOP of her list..... after the 1st thread was pulled becuase some folks did not want to be “listed” as a FRedHead, the mods and I agreed that it would be ok to post the “stats” but list folks as “NAME WITHELD” unless they agree to be listed by name...... now the ruling is “NO LIST” period... I accept the rules, and move forward, I encourage everyone to do the same..

FReegards,

David

[restornu]

Laura Ingraham Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson - Sep 7, 2007 Fred Thompson discusses his views and his upcoming campaign for president - Audio

Lot of talk but where the walk?

[YdontUleaveLibs]

I am going to vote for the next President of the United States, Fred Thompson. It really doesn’t matter what he says or anymore it is a done deal. Fred will beat Hillary. So if Fred has done some slightly questionable things so be it. It is still much better than the depths of depravity that Hillary has sunk to.

[COgamer]

If it comes down to Fred or Rudy, I’ll vote Fred. But so far I haven’t seen what his supporters are so fired up about. He seems to have a bit of a wishy-washy work ethic. So far I see no reason to stop supporting my own candidate, unless that vote will enable a Rudy win. Then I’d have to vote for Fred out of panic.

[Paradox]

Freepers. Allowing the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good, since 1998.

[brothers4thID]

(If you didn’t get pinged it’s because I got lazy, sorry)

First, I want the 15 minutes of my life spent reading the sniping between Duncan and Fred supporters, back. I really don’t care who started it or who is being meaner than whom. We’re better than moonbats, let’s try to show it.

Now that I’m done with my preachy-mom bit...

I’ve read this blog post three times. I get that the author is saying Fred lied because he said issue ads didn’t come up at the beginning of the debate about CFR. I have a feeling that is either Fred misspeaking or a misunderstanding of “the beginning of the debate”. But, none the less, score one measly point to the author for finding this enormous flaw in the candidacy of Fred Thompson

Or.. not. Thompson gets my vote precisely because he did support CFR. Now before the flame throwers get warmed up, let me be clear. I hate the final bill that came about. McCain-Feingold is the most convoluted, lawyer empowering, right restricting bunch of crap I’ve ever seen in a bill, and that is saying A LOT. But the ideal behind CFR is a good one, unless, that is, you like the idea of backhanded bribery and political extortion.

In the section of the Congressional record cited, Thompson is arguing that the language of the bill needs to be precise, to have a precise dividing line so that groups and candidates are not “caught” in an illeagal act solely due to the random interpretation of any single add by the FEC or a judge. IS THERE ANYONE OF US WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT? We want LESS CLEAR legislation? That’s what we’re fighting for?

I just wish Senator Thompson had fought harder for clarity in the final product bill. As it stands, CFR is so insanely complicated that it takes teams of lawyers to run a campaign. I don’t know about y’all, but the last thing I want are a bunch of lawyers deciding what I can and cannot hear about someone running my country.

More later, in a thread better suited for such rants.

[Calpernia]

Related:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts
John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts...

Excerpt:

Your McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation is a treasonous act. You and your cohorts are attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, the very same constitution that you swore an oath to defend, so help you God! That makes you a domestic enemy of that great document and a traitor to your country. Yes, and Benedict Arnold was a war hero before he turned traitor too.

How dare you even think that you are qualified to sit in the oval office! Ronald Reagan’s office! President? Hah! You miserable excuse for a two-bit political hack, you’re not even qualified to shine Ronald Reagan’s boots. If you do run, I’m afraid you’re gonna be at least one vote short. It’ll be a cold day in hell before a traitor like you ever receives my vote. And that’s a campaign promise you can take to the bank.

You can take your fascist campaign finance laws and the jackbooted FEC anti-free-speech enforcers you are empowering and put them where the sun don’t shine. And if this post is in violation of your unconstitutional law, shove it too!