Posted on 03/29/2007 5:48:35 PM PDT by KevinDavis
It is a shame that people are getting flamed for asking questions..
Why is it ok for Ronald Reagan to start as a Democrat...
Exactly! I can't believe the number of people on this board who don't understand that people sometimes change their minds.
It would take more research to come up with a list of such questions than it would to find their answers.
Supposedly, but Fred's taken almost all his support.
Backwards. However Romney is better than the two media-driven front runners.
The poster is being disingenuous. The questions are taken seriously, they were just put together with the obvious intent of putting Fred in the worst possible light. It is also obvious the issues have been brought up and discuss numerous times, including on this thread already but the poster ignores those responses.
2. Yes if this is a rollover, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37aa28c44345.htm
3. Yes. We need a better explanation on his current reversal.
4. Its OK in my book for anyone to have a 'Come to Jesus' on abortion, as long as they are sincere about it.
5. Not the kind that would be best for a Presidential resume (governor of a large state), but the current field lacks that on both sides (except for Bill Richardson). Rudy has been a mayor of NY of course, but I'm not sure I'd put "mayor" as a great resume bullet for POTUS.
And this little gem from post #107 in the linked thread is just a wonderful display of the RINO Rudy Rooters attitude.
The following interview- conducted in another world and lifetime- pre 9-11- may answer SOME of the questions you have- all of which are reasonable to ask.
~ snip ~
Was Thompson, like most of his party, disappointed in the outcome of his Asia- gate probe? "Of course I was disappointed, on many levels. Mainly on the level of truth and justice." But "on the level of process and doing as well as we could with the opportunity we had, I'm satisfied"-though "you can't be completely satisfied when you know you got stiffed, in certain respects."
Thompson is referring chiefly to the behavior of his committee's Democrats, the memory of which visibly appalls him even today, a year and a half later. Republicans faulted him for bending over backwards to accommodate the minority; that minority-the Democrats-tarred him as a partisan witch-hunter anyway. Thompson says that he had Watergate in the back of his mind-"too much so, in some respects"-and tried to follow the Watergate model, which demands a certain broadness.
"A lot of my friends," he says, "thought that if we could just get something on the Democrats-and God knows there was a lot to get-we'd be in clover." But Thompson opted to tread lightly, recognizing that "today the accuser is almost as suspect as the accused. There's a good deal of skepticism about all of us in the political process"-which, he argues, happens to be "the major part of Clinton's success." Indeed, "that's why he survived." What Thompson had not sufficiently appreciated is the vitriol, coupled with a knack for sabotage, of the Democrats.
"There was nothing I could have done," he pleads, "to cause John Glenn [the senior Democrat on the committee] to try to have a fair, down-the-middle investigation." Could he hazard a guess as to why Glenn, in the waning days of a long and relatively dignified career, chose to play the part of White House protector? After a long pause, he answers, "I got some ideas, but I'd just rather not get into it. I can only say that it's one of the most disappointing things that I've ever encountered. I've been around hearings and practiced a lot of law and all, but I didn't expect that. I can't read his mind, but it was consistent, it was persistent, and there never was a moment when he deviated from what he had decided to do."
What about the suspicion that there was an exchange between Glenn and the president: obstruction for a valedictory space flight? "Well, that's between him and the good Lord," says Thompson. "I certainly don't know the answer and never will."
Thompson has concluded that traditional investigative hearings are a thing of the past. As it stands, "You have to find out all you're going to find out beforehand and use your hearings to demonstrate what you've already discovered." Why? Because "there's too much partisanship and too short an attention span among the media, especially television. We were deemed a failure literally the day after our hearings started." Most of the press considered the hearings too dull, too cautious, too fussy. Thompson held some off-the-record meetings with reporters, "and I said, 'Look, guys: Pay attention. I don't have John Dean and a taping system, but there's some very interesting stuff here. This was the most corrupt political campaign we've ever seen. You need to keep up with it, even if it doesn't seem blockbuster.' And they all nodded, said they understood. Bullsh**: They didn't. I should have saved my breath. The name of the game is the president: Are you going to get him or not?"
The Asia-gate investigation led by Rep. Chris Cox in the House, Thompson believes, shows that "you can still succeed." (The results of that inquiry are as yet unknown to the public.) "But they didn't have hearings. They did all their work behind closed doors, in secret, which doesn't necessarily portend good things."
Not only was "ol' Fred," as the senator calls himself, unable to destroy the president over China; many conservatives are miffed that he voted to acquit Clinton on one of the impeachment counts-that concerning perjury. (He voted to convict on obstruction of justice.) Thompson explains that he found himself "encumbered" by his legal education; the perjury charge was inconsistent with "the facts, the Constitution, and my perception of what the Founding Fathers had in mind."
As for Clinton himself, Thompson has given this extraordinary figure some thought: "He's a man of his times. He's forgiven for more than people have traditionally been forgiven. Less is expected of him. We're more into personal relations and everyone's motivations than we are what they stand for." Because of nonstop and pervasive media, "the president is there with you, lives with you, on a daily basis. And we're more comfortable with a buddy than we are with a father." The remarkable thing about Clinton is "his utter lack of shame. He literally-I mean this-has no shame. He's not affected the way normal people are by humiliation. For him, it's all a part of the game. It's a matter of maneuvering to the next point. And it serves him well in the kind of environment we have now."
Confronting further conservative criticisms, Thompson cheerfully acknowledges that he is "off the [Republican] reservation" on campaign-finance reform. He contends that "it's just not right to take large sums of money from people who have legislation before you. It's that basic. The idea of mixing policy and money in that way is just so obviously a problem . . . It's kind of like an elephant in a bathtub: If you don't see it at first glance, chances are you never will." The situation "may not be fixable," he says-but ought to be.
In answer to his critics on tort reform-one of them complains that he is "in the pocket" of his fellow trial lawyers-Thompson has a single word, which he freely expands on: federalism. The question, says Thompson, should not be, "Do we think people are being sued too much this week?" It should be, "Do we believe that certain decisions ought to be made at certain levels of government?" Moreover, "we're not supposed to legislate by anecdote." For every "coffee-in-the-lap" story, Thompson and others are happy to provide a tale of a litigant unjustly squashed
~ snip ~
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_51/ai_54516234/pg_1
And lastly when Fred ran for the Goracle's vacated seat he won by the largest statewide margin ever. When Fred speaks, people listen -- and vote for him. Catch a few of his warm-up pitches on the Paul Harvey show, he seems to be doing commentary daily now.
They might as well be saying "Heil Hitler" the way they gaga over Rudy.
It's getting kinda creepy around here lately!
It is a shame so many Rudybots are acting as if obtuseness and stupidity were virtues!
Yeah : )
I've got some more questions.
6) What makes Fred Thompson So Darn Popular?
7) If Rudy was comparing himself to Fred Thompson, would he wish he wasn't against Gun control so he could just shoot himself and be done with it?
8) Fred Thompson is a Senator, an Actor, and a Lawyer, all things conservatives usually loathe. Isn't it cool that he manages to do all those and still be the best?
9) As you may know, former Governor Tommy Thompson also served in the Bush administration, and is a well-liked politician. What do you think he would give to change his first name to Fred?
1. Besides being a Senator and an Actor, what else has he done?
(Minority Counsel For the Senate Watergate Committee)
2. Is this the same Fred Thompson that was rolled over by John Glenn in the Chinagate hearings?
(Yes)
3. Is this the same Fred Thompson that supported McCain and voted for the McCain/Fiengold bill?
(Yes)
4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney?
(He's not Romney)
5. Does he have any executive experience?
(No)
Thanks, I think I like the guy.
6. Good sense, straight-up American, great speaking voice, and gravitas.
7. Fred is head and shoulders above Rudy - literally!
8. Yes, it is.
9. Probably his left eye.
;-)
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.