Posted on 07/06/2007 7:06:19 PM PDT by BlogsForFredThompson.com
It seems that his opponents will go to new lows in order to derail Fred's current rise in the polls. In this piece from the New York Daily News, critics are lashing out at Fred because he did commercials for a company called LifeLock. Apparently the company's co-founder was accused of secretly tapping into people's bank accounts.
This is of course makes Fred one of those typical evil dastardly Republicans. But wait...
"It's part of his contract at ABC Radio Networks. Like the other on-air talent, they are contractually obligated to do some commercials," said Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo.As first reported in the Los Angeles Times, the Federal Trade Commission alleged in 1996 that Maynard got account numbers from consumers by peddling himself as a credit-repair expert who would clean up their credit reports.
Maynard settled the case without admitting to the charge, though he did agree to get out of the credit-fixing business. ABC Radio Networks and Thompson's spokesman said LifeLock is a legitimate company and he will continue to promote it. Maynard resigned last month as LifeLock's marketing director when his past was revealed, but he remains a consultant and shareholder.
"The company seems to be fine. It's currently giving away its services to soldiers and vets," said Corallo.
ABC Radio Networks added: "Identify theft is a real issue which LifeLock addresses - and we have every expectation that we will continue our relationship with them."
So, Fred has to do this based on his contractual agreement with ABC?
Well, you can be sure will we see the usual suspects huffing and puffing about this, as if Fred should spend all his days laboriously fact checking every single ABC advertiser to make sure that they don't have any skeletons in their company's closet.
Democrats jumped all over Thompson when they learned about the commercial."He's lobbying for the powerful special interests . . . serving as the pitchman for a company whose owner is accused of fraud," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacie Paxton. "It's pretty clear that Fred Thompson stands for what's best for him and his special interest friends, not the American people," she added.
You just knew that they were going to somehow throw in the 'lobbying' word didn't you? Let's watch and see how many of the media outlets and lib blogs start running with this thing. I guarantee you will see 9 out of 10 throw in the word 'lobbying' somewhere, or make mention that Fred and his sons were lobbyists.
Of course, we all know that lobbying is only bad if you are a Republican. Democrats like Harry Reid and his son's are just great guys trying to make a living and help good causes. What a load! ;)
To add to the “conspiracy”, I believe Rush also does commercials for Lifelock.
You know, that kind of nonsense reported doesn’t sway me against Senator Thompson at all. I have been interested in his candidcy until something he did this week that does matter to me.
Fred Thompson hired an openly homosexual man to help run his campaign. Rudy the Rumpranger’s homophilia was one of the things that makes him a “no vote for” candidate. Is Fred just a lesser evil of the same thing? It was a boneheaded thing to hire a homosexual - it sends the wrong (libertarian) message that the conservative base doesn’t like.
Fred you could be the man, but not if you are going to embrace sodomites by giving them jobs in your campaign. Leave the “Hollywood” values in Hollywood. The vast majority of Republicans despise the homosexual agenda. Don’t do ANYTHING that causes you to appears to support it in even the most minute way. Put up a sign that reads, “Homosexuals need not apply”
Hillary behind AP/LAT abortion story on Fred?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1862148/posts
Hannity definitely does. I’ve heard his commercial for them.
Great idea there with that sign. Way to get yourself sued for a civil rights violation. THAT is a sure way to get elected.
Brilliant, just brilliant. With advice like this, who needs attack ads?
Another good resource, thanks.
Good grief, that's some scary-bad advice.
He does that, and he's done.
Some things to consider: "Openly homosexual", what does this mean in the context of seeking employment? Did this person introduce himself to Thompson by saying, "Hi, I'm gay. You look good in that suit". OR, does "openly homosexual" mean in this context that if ASKED, he would have no problem admitting in public that he's a homosexual?
I have no problem with hiring someone in the latter category, as it's just someone who's comfortable with their lifestyle choice (a choice I disagree with of course). The former type of person would be the "homosexual activist" to avoid.
As others here have pointed out anyway, to openly DENY homosexuals employment would be playing right into the leftist's hands. It's an unfortunate consequence of our society, but at some point, one must work with what we have. If the guy is good at his JOB, then his homosexual tendancy can be tolerated, IMO.
Besides, it's almost a blessing in disguise to have such stuff in the open. Think if Fred announces, and then deep into his candidacy, the Slimes runs a hit piece after they discover some "closet homo" in his campaign. Timed right ( a week or two before the election) it could be disasterous.
All of this considered, one final point: I really don't think it matters to too many (other than on FR) what sexual orientation someone has, as long as it has nothing to do with their job (obvioiusly teachers or anyone involved with children should be prohibited from being homosexual, for example). I personally don't care; and really it doesn't help change homosexuals to say, "You shouldn't even be able to WORK for a LIVING unless you repent". It doesn't help when the job itself has nothing to do with children, or working with vulnerable people in general, because there is no connection between their perversion and their job. Thus, there's no punitive value in denying them a job.
“Way to get yourself sued for a civil rights violation.”
It was NEVER considered a civil right until some moronic court decided to reinterpret the constitution. We were of a bunch of compliant sheep and let them usurp our authority as the people. It is time to take back that authority. I DO NOT advocate the physical harm of homosexuals. However, I don’t think they should be able to work in government jobs or elective office. At the least, they should never be given special protection under the law (AKA “hate crimes”). They are sexual deviants and should be treated as such. It was treated once as criminal behavior and should be again.
Should Fred Thompson take such a stand, I think it would not only get him elected, but it would start rolling back some of the nonsense foisted on the public.
Whatever, I won’t buy into supporting a candidate that supports or tolerates homosexuality as being OK.
“If the guy is good at his JOB, then his homosexual tendancy can be tolerated, IMO.”
That is libertarian thinking and not acceptable to a true conservative. If we continue to let ourselves be forced into accepting homosexual behavior as OK, then it will just get worse. I expect a conservative presidential candidate to set an example. If the “left” doesn’t like it, then so be it. We must be different than them, or we may as well be them.
“It doesn’t help when the job itself has nothing to do with children, or working with vulnerable people in general, because there is no connection between their perversion and their job. Thus, there’s no punitive value in denying them a job.”
Your reasoning is specious. I’ve been in government service too many years and have seen first hand how having openly homosexual persons in the workplace has done harm. One’s private behavior is definitely reflected in their public behavior. This doesn’t just apply to homosexuals either. I have worked around too many promiscuous hetereosexuals of both genders and seen how their proclivities have disrupted the workplace. Private behavior matters. If you don’t think so, then I recommend you learn to think so. The fabric of our society is going down the toilet. Only a “moral” people are trully capable of maintaining a democratic form of government - they police themselves. The less “moral” our society becomes, the more danger exists that democrasy will no longer work. The founding fathers realized this to be true.
This only confirms for me, that Fred just might be the one.
Liberal media types, are clearly trying to damage his candidacy early.
That’s a good sign. :)
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.