EARTH TO LAMAR: FRED THOMPSON LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (41-second video FLUB)

Hardball, YouTube ^ | 4.3.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

EARTH TO LAMAR:
FRED LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (video)

by Mia T, 4.3.07

Lamar Alexander on Hardball, pushing Fred Thompson for president confirms the obvious: Fred's top asset is his stage presence, followed closely by his presidential and other executive experience... on film.

Fred's geography and ideology seal the deal for Lamar, the former being pure South and the latter, pure enough Right.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 308,196

YouTube Honors for VOTE SMART:
#10 - Most Viewed (This Month) - News & Politics - All
#10 - Most Viewed (This Month) - News & Politics - English
#41 - Top Rated (This Month) - News & Politics - All
#39 - Top Rated (This Month) - News & Politics - English
#11 - Most Discussed (This Month) - News & Politics - All
#9 - Most Discussed (This Month) - News & Politics - English
#9 - Top Favorites (This Month) - News & Politics - All
#9 - Top Favorites (This Month) - News & Politics - English
#89 - Most Responded (Today) - All

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[Mia T]

So give us some reason to vote for Fred. He's a good man, however, He couldn't even control his own Government Committee Chairmanship, and capitulated to John Glenn, the minority man.

What did he do impressive while he was Senator? I'd like some reasons to support him.--Gracey

 

Precisely, Gracey.

 

Back to Reality

But still. Mr. Thompson is a candidate without an exploratory committee, a campaign war chest or a full-time staff. Apart from a few close friends, Mr. Thompson has, as yet, no real inner circle and no coterie of trusted advisors guiding his campaign.

At a time when most G.O.P. Presidential hopefuls are putting as much distance as they can between themselves and the Bush administration, Mr. Thompson has made a point of fund-raising for Scooter Libby's defense fund.

And in terms of his actual policy positions, Mr. Thompson is hard to identify. He has supported drilling for oil in the Arctic, and is a supporter of gun-owners' rights. But in other ways, he takes after moderate Republican Howard Baker, his old boss on the Congressional committee that investigated Watergate.

He supported campaign-finance reform and opposed tort reform. He doesn't support gay marriage, but would still leave the issue up to the states rather than banning it outright. His position on abortion, while officially pro-life, can best be described as a work in progress.

And he supports some immigrant guest-worker programs.

It's too soon to know whether his ideological squishiness will be a problem. But given the irrelevance of actual details this far into Mr. Thompson's cinematic Presidential bid, maybe it won't matter.

"Fred Thompson--well, he's not Ronald Reagan," said Mr. Keene. "But he's done enough, and is well enough liked. He's a fallback."

The perfect role.

The Mysterious Appeal of Fred Thompson
BY REBECCA SINDERBRAND
The New York Observer

[Mia T]

If your candidate can’t win, what’s the point?

Surely you understand the danger of the clintons.

[Mia T]

As I said above, after Bush, the voter will be looking for proven competence in 2008.

We nominate at our own peril someone whose only ‘executive’ experience is playing a president in film.

[Pox]

Electing RINO Rudy is no different than electing HRC, IMO.

I’ve made clear the reasons why I will not vote for him as I see no difference between putting him in the White House or HRC in the White House.

[Mia T]

As I said to Ol' Sparky, the premise of equivalence--to say that there is no difference between Rudy and the clintons--is absurd.

The clintons are rapists and predators, willfully ignored terrorism for their entire tenure, are seditiously corrupt, and are monstrous abusers of power.

Remember this: If it's Rudy vs hillary clinton in '08 and you vote 3rd party or stay home, you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To avoid electing a 'RINO,' you are helping to elect a Stalinist. Makes abundant sense.

[Pox]

As I’ve already stated, your factions insistence upon nominating a liberal gun grabber to the Republican ticket will most likely alienate enough hard right ‘get out the vote’ types to cost the Republicans enough votes to allow HRC to ascend to her throne.

The way I see it, you’re cutting your own throat with your blind hatred by alienating more voters than you will gain. As close as the 04 election was, it shouldn’t be hard to figure this out. Apathy amongst the base on the right spells doom for the Republicans in 08. You’ll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

As I've also stated, your faction would vote for a Ham Sandwich if you thought it could beat HRC.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the NY press has had a decades long jihad against Rudy you are both wrong. In Chicago there has been NO favorable coverage of Giuliani. His visit to the city a couple of weeks ago received virtually NO notice.

Don’t let your fantasies get the best of you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As the nominee Rudy will win every Southern state. Turd party candidates will make no difference.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And your attitude about cancer is what? “Oh, don’t worry about that little speck on my nose. It hasn’t killed me yet.”

The issue OBVIOUSLY is not the IMMEDIATE risk of you dying today from the terrorist/speck but the GREAT danger of allowing it to metastisize tomorrow and becoming FATAL.

[Mia T]

A ham sandwich is infinitely better for our collective health than missus ham hocks. ;)

But the impetus isn’t hatred of hillary. It’s a recognition of the lethal danger both clintons pose. To our country, to ALL of our children.

In the end each of us has control of only one thing electorally: Our own vote.

To keep the clintons from harming this country and ALL of our children, I will vote for WHOMEVER the Rs nominate. (If we all unify in the general against hillary, your argument would be moot.)

But, apparently, you refuse to do this. Doctrinal purity trumps all for you.

You will thereby render yourself a functional ‘Perot.’ Did you not learn anything from ‘92 and ‘96 and 9/11???

[Pox]

Nonsense. I see RINO Rudy as a disaster on par with Clintoon. I believe your faction has donned blinders in this regard.

The Perot analogy is absurd. I will vote for just about any Republican I’ve seen join the race at this point except for the liberal because of his track record.

This also has nothing to do with ‘Doctrinal Purity’, but with my own personal convictions and conscience. You may be prepared to allow liberal RINO Rudy to sign any gun grabbing legislation that the dim led congress hands him just to keep hitlery out of the White House, but I am not prepared to sacrifice my rights so readily. If both are going to threaten the right I hold dearest of all, why bother voting for either? That doesn’t even include the appointment of Supreme Court judges that also directly affect me personally, but I see no difference between the two in these aspects.

In the end, both are detrimental to our society, one immediately, one over the long haul. You can have them. I want nothing to do with either.

[Mia T]

You are distorting the facts.

For example, Rudy says he will appoint strict constructionists to the court. We know hillary will appoint activist judges.

This is huge. This is, arguably, the whole ball of wax. This determines whether the Constitution is protected or not.

And this difference punctures virtually all of your objections.

Your distortions may help you deal with your ‘conscience,’ but that doesn’t make your action to help elect hillary clinton any less immoral.

[Pox]

Hmm, believe a politicians word, one who needs conservative coaching, or examine his track record for indications of how he’ll proceed.

I’m sorry, his track record does not agree with your assessment, IMO.

As I’ve already been told on this forum, the RINO Rudy juggernaut does not need me or my vote. Don’t worry, you’ll do fine without me!

[Ol' Sparky]

And he supports some immigrant guest-worker programs.

Are you trying to win a prize, Mia, for being the biggest hypocrite at FR? You support a thrice-married, adulterer that is rabidly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual while attacking the moral depravity of the Clintons. Now, you're attack Thompson on illegal immigration when there isn't a politician in the nation that has done more to coddle illegals?

So, if illegal immigration is an important issue, then let's see you condemn RINO Rudy's record on it:

Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.

New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department had never notified the INS.

Source: Heather Mac Donald

CNN clip:

Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."

Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."

The New York Immigrant Coalition Press Release, August, 1989:

Rudy would continue to make city services available to all immigrants, regardless of immigration status.

Prohibit city workers from reporting undocumented immigrants to the INS, unless criminal activity is involved….

Make sure that city workers understand what benefits immigrants are entitled to….

Encourage outreach to immigrant communities to encourage their utilization of city services….

Support the use of interpreters and translators in city government

Support bilingual and bicultural education with goals of learning fluent English and maintaining native language skills….

Oppose making English the “official language” of the U.S.

Support adding alienage to protected class under City’s Human rights Law.

Additionally, he has supported Bush's guest worker program.

[Mia T]

The Perot analogy is absurd. I will vote for just about any Republican I’ve seen join the race at this point except for the liberal because of his track record.

 

The Perot analogy applies to the hypothetical Rudy v hillary matchup.

And it is exactly apt.

The clintons are playing the Religious Right like fiddles.

The irony of the clintons manipulating the RR to help to elect hillary clinton must not be lost in this obsession with Rudy.

The real danger to the RR isn't Rudy. It's the clintons.

WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right

[Pox]

Not voting is not the same as voting for a third party candidate no matter how wildly you spin it. Both are unacceptable candidates to me.

Again, as I’ve already been told on this forum, the RINO Rudy juggernaut does not need me or my vote. Don’t worry, you’ll do fine without me!

[Mia T]

I was citing an article posted today on FR.

The point has to do with you and Thompson, not me, not Rudy. You seem to believe Thompson satisfies the requisite conservative criteria. This article calls that assumption into question.

[Mia T]

You are incorrect. A vote not placed for an R is one less vote hillary needs to win.

I want all of us to ‘do fine.’

[dirtboy]

I don't buy the argument that some Freepers seem to make, that 'being a true conservative' qualifies a candidate to be president.

The inverse, however, is true. Rudy's liberalims disqualifies him from being a viable GOP nominee.

[Pox]

And once again, neither candidate is acceptable to me. Put an acceptable candidate, within reason of course, behind the (R), and I’ll vote for that candidate. RINO Rudy is not acceptable to me, and that is not my fault, but a shortcoming of the Republican party, IMO.