Is that a flip-flop or just another one of Fred’s nonsensical and lame attempts at humor?
Every time Fred attempts to appeal to the RHINO’s he ends up saying everything and nothing. Sometimes he makes no sense at all, sometimes he’s condescending and sarcastic, and at times, his ramblings are left to interpretation, time and again leaving his supporters scrambling to explain, justify, and defend.
You are a hopeless shill.
One could easily say the same thing about your posts.
Fred is understood perfectly by those who don't look to the government for all their needs and wants, nor see the president as santa claus handing out goodies.
Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those defined by the Constitution.
Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now, many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of the President has absolutely no authority?
Let's think about this. The Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties. Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.
For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers (cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"
So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money? Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases, the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public, the press and the candidates.
Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in office.
The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are competing.
But, Fred does!