Posted on 04/01/2007 9:13:44 PM PDT by SE Mom
What tragedy about his daughter?
>>>> Asides from the "evil" AP, the National Review was also lying in 1994 about his being pro-choice? <<<<
>> Yes, the NR (or actually just one writer on it) was. <<
I believe the NR was guilty of faulty analysis, not of deceit. NR did correct the matter and desisted calling Thompson "pro-choice." But I think it's about time Luis Gonzalez does likewise. I think Luis did a valuable service by introducing the FACT that Thompson has a history of being soft on abortion, but out of fairness and truthfulness, Luis, I think you should stop pushing people towards the INFERENCE that Thompson is pro-choice.
Frankly, Luis, you are too honorable to be written off as a RudyBot or anyone's bot, but your credibility is best served by pulling back to what you know. We can make our inferences on our own, pushing your own presumption so hard only invites unfortunate questions of your credibility which undermine your very valid concerns.
Sophisticated social conservative activists tell me they cannot vote for Giuliani under any conditions and have no rapport with McCain or Romney. They do not view Sen. Sam Brownback, representing the social right, as a viable candidate. They are coming to see Thompson as the only conservative who can be nominated. Their appreciation of him stems not from his eight years as a U.S. senator from Tennessee but from his role as Manhattan district attorney on the TV series " Law & Order." The part was molded to Thompson's specifications as a tough prosecutor, lending him political star power.My favorite part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
Although he announced in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks his intention to seek re-election, upon further reflection, which seems to have been prompted in large part by the sudden death of his daughter (Elizabeth "Betsy" Thompson Panici) on January 30, 2002 from accidental drug overdose[10][12], he decided not to pursue this course.
wow...that sounds like a great ticket. Or how about Fred Thompson and Condie Rice?
A. Ronald Reagan.
B. Fred Thompson.
Answer: Fred Thompson.
Q. Which individual had an accomplished career in a field other than politics or Hollywood, Ronald Reagan or Fred Thompson?
Answer: Fred Thompson
Q. Which candidate crushed his opponents twice in statewide races by winning more than 60% of the vote in both cases?
Answer: Fred Thompson.
Q. Which candidate or possible candidate has more experience in high elective office: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson?
Answer: Fred Thompson.
Q. Which candidate or possible candidate publicly stood up for Scooter Libby?
Answer: Fred Thompson.
Q. Which candidate committed to the idea of term limits and then did not run again because it would violate his stated position?
Answer: Fred Thompson.
The facts are these:
When Al Gore left the Senate to become VP, he had to resign from his Senate seat. Thompson ran as the Republican against Tennessee 3-term Congressman Cooper on the Democrat side. Thompson was considered the underdog, with Cooper having twice the funds of Thompson. Thompson nonetheless demolished Cooper 61-39%.
Because it was to fill Gore's unfinished term and vacated seat, Thompson was immediately sworn in after the election was certified at the beginning of December, 1994. Two years later, Thompson ran again, defeating his opponent by an even larger margin.
Thompson was one of the people who pushed the idea of term limits, which would have prevented Senators from serving more than 12 years. Had Thompson served yet another term, it would have put him over 14 years in the Senate. To be consistent, he would have had to resign after serving 3 years, 11 months of the new term. He went back to being citizen Thompson.
Fred Thompson served a total of 8 years, 1 month in the Senate, having been elected by huge margins twice.
I'll give Pukin Dog this much: If primary voters see Romney or Giuliani as less successful than they would be without talk of Thompson, they may decide to back a stronger horse. Electability is a very strong concern of primary supporters; If Romney polls at five percent instead of twelve percent, many voters simply will not consider him; If Giuliani polls at 31 instead of 40 percent, that keepshim from being able to steamroll all other candidates. George Bush, Al Gore, and Bob Dole all benefited from the combination of an aura of inevitability and a desire to either avoid a bruising primary fight, or giving much less desirable candidates (i.e., McCain) a chance.
Nonetheless, I think that it's inconceivable that Thompson is acting purely to manipulate the field for McCain's benefit. If he were, he might conceivably avoid promoting McCain's finance deform, but he sure as hell wouldn't be attacking McCain's signature issue as a woeful failure and a huge mistake on his part. Also, in doing so, he risks giving Giuliani momentum when he fails to declare.
Truthfully, I think it'd be much more likely that Obama is running a similar strategy for Hillary. You've read it here: There is no way in Hell that the Democratic Party, the most racist institution left in America, is going to nominate a black man for a presidency that they feel they can win. We'll see when he files his FEC reports. Unlike Edwards, his fundraising is likely one-shot sources. If he doesn't throw down $15 million cash on hand, the game is already over; he's nothing more than the Jesse Jackson of the moment.
Latest links from Sturm...
Thank you Sturm!
I'd answer you but cannot deprive you of an opportunity to learn more about FDT. Better that you go here
and click on Biographical Info...
and check out Sturm Ruger's excellent list of links, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810458/posts?page=27#27
Enjoy! :)
"...maybe they're going to smear Thompson soon so he doesn't muscle in on Tragedy TV time."
Ah the Tragedy Vote, can't overlook that. All Rudy needs is a recurrence of some treatable cancer and he's in.
Here's the point I've been making.
Thompson was recognized as a pro-choice Republican in 1994, according to NR, on a letter to a constituent, while discussing the issue of abortion, Thompson said the following:
"I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
If indeed he said that, and I believe that he did, how do you explain his statement as anything OTHER than a pro-choice position?
Adittionally, since overturning Roe v. Wade would be totally consistent with his notion that government should interfere in no way in an individual's decision, and the fact that it being overturned does not make abortion illegal, when it comes to abortion, stating that he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned does NOT make his a pro-life position.
Nice story and information about him...thanks.
I wish he would have new pictures circulated FAST...many are too stern and gruff looking. Get ahead of the main stream media, Fred! They will use the worst they can find anyway, give us some good ones, NOW, while you think about running!
My rep broke his promise and continues to run every 2 years and still we never hear anything from him on the important issues...no national stature at all!
He exactly represents my positions...get out of my business... and then I can get busy helping people understand the best choice and help them all LIVE with it!
P.S. A pro-life position requires government “interference” in making abortion illegal.
If you were running, I’d vote for you.
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.