I just found one of Fred's negatives.
Posted on 01/02/2008 7:10:14 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
What kind of ministers son would do that? What kind of sick morals did this family really instill into their children?
That was the breaking point for me, I will not support them.
He has squandered a 30 point lead on Intrade, when he had enviable name recognition that Hunter does not have.
He is pro-life, but he tries to nuance the pro-life position with federalism. No one would nuance a baby-killing position with federalism. He worked for a pro-abortion group. His lack of support for the HLA, plus other quotes show that he attempts to nuance his position to appear centrist.
Posted on 04/11/2007 11:11:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1815999/posts
On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994
Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
Furthermore, this from the American Spectator posted just a few days ago:
In the interview, Thompson was asked: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
Thompson is not an evangelical, having had some kind of fallout with Dobson & saying “I’m not going to dance to your tune”, also he seems to have a Laodicean “I’m OK/You’re OK” spiritual outlook.
Thompson: ‘I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934692/posts
On immigration, Hunter’s criticism of Thompson over this issue is well aimed. We need someone in the white house who isn’t a johnny-come-lately on this issue.
Road to Des Moines Conversions on Immigration (Hunter Press release)
News Which Cannot Lose ^ | 10/25/07 | Duncan Hunter/staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1916889/posts
Thompson is not as strong as Hunter on the WOT. Hunter’s background is military, having won a bronze star in Vietnam, and he’s the ranking member of the house committee on Defense. His name comes up a lot for Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security, but Thompson’s doesn’t.
Thompson supporters are asking Hunterites to care about polls when they obviously don’t care that much about polls, and they’re asking Hucksterites to care about conservatism when it’s obvious that isn’t high on the Huck followers’ radar. Thompson is asking for both camps to care about the things they don’t care about.
Thompson’s promise was that by this time in the race he’d be kicking tootyfruityrudy to the curb, but instead he’s whining about Huckabee and barely beats Ron Paul at Intrade. The bible says something about “to whom much is given, much is required” and the parable of the talents shows that bigger results are expected from those to whom more is given. Thompson was given name recognition and money and the result is dropping polls and losing 30 points at Intrade. Time to give those resources to someone who has been much more frugal with what’s been given to him: Hunter.
I will vote for Thompson if he gets the nomination, but Hunter would make a better president.
Overall, I’d say Fred’s perceived negatives are quite low. I guess that's why the preferred method of choice to attack him is to try to label him lazy or to say he does not want the job.
Strong consistently conservative principles, low negatives, and high believability. Fred is absolutely the best choice.
“Wow. Over 4 hours and this is all you’ve collected?
If you filter out the repetition it’s not much.”
Thompson 3rd in Iowa.
BTTT
I’ve been busy and have not been able to followthe results. Did Fred hold 3rd?
If so, I’m very happy. He’s still in the race.
I just found one of Fred's negatives.
He did finish 3rd.
Hey! Thanks for getting back to me.
Yes he did, didn’t he?...Much to the chagrin of those who declared him dead.
That’s very good!
Sure thing.
It’s been a long time since America elected a non-Governor or a non Vice-President, ever since JFK, and that was 48 years ago. Voters don’t prefer legislators as POTUS.You did go on to mention Hillary, Obama and Edwards, but I'm going to emphasize that with this thought:
If the Republicans run a former Senator and the Democrats run a Senator (or former Senator), then what is the relevance analyzing history regarding the inability of Senators to win the Presidency?
If it's Senator vs. Senator, then the next president MUST be a Senator.
That's 100%.
e needs to cut out the driftwood out of his speeches and make it more conciseI agree with that. He needs some better coaching. He does have a tendency to wander through a wilderness of thoughts and ideas. Great thoughts; great ideas. But he needs more Reaganesque, Limbaughesque focus. Maybe he should listen to Rush every day. Twice.
If that is the case, it is a sad commentary on the "Christian Right" who apparently favor a symbolic move over a solution. I'll say it again - The POTUS cannot introduce, pass, or sign a constitutional amendment, and "supporting" one as president is merely cheerleading. Thompson has set out what he would do as President regarding ending abortion, and it is about all a President CAN do under our Constitution. I would think that mattered to you if you were serious about ending abortion in this country.
I think it is interesting that when Thompson was heavier, he looked healthier, younger, and more robust. He lost weight for health reasons, and now people think he looks older and a bit sickly, when in fact, he is probably healthier than before he lost the weight. Not slapping at your response. You were answering a question.
No, good old Fred’s posititon on the purjury charge was spot on. His reasoning has been posted on FR many times, try reading it.
By not lowing the bar he kept that same tool from be available for abuse in the future. Ironically it has kept the Dems at bay on Bush.
Don’t get around much do you...
I think Jet is looking for folks who will deal with facts.
Go trying learning about Fred then get back to us...
To me, Fred’s only negatives are that he was never a governor and he supported campaign finance reform.
Note that the Dems aren’t running any governors except Richardson, whose not a really serious contender. IMO that’s because of the left’s domination of the party.
I can think of one Democratic governor (Mike Easley) who I’d support over Huckabee and probably over Giuliani. But he’s not running, and a one term senator who never even ran for re-election is. Go figure.
-Eric
He doesn't support the platform because it relies on the passage of the HLA. Fred knows that it is virtually impossible to do that, and stated that even with a Republican President and both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, it wasn't done. He's looking at a REAL and DO-ABLE solution to the problem.
Huckabee and Hunter are mouthing platitudes about the HLA, in order to get support of the purist pro-lifers, but they know full well that it won't be passed, so they'll never have to be held accountable for their support of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.