They obviously can't find anything new with which to attack Fred. I'm only surprised he didn't mention the cancer thingy.
▲ Click the pic to see where he stands on the issues. ▲
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:07:52 AM PDT by radar101
It's understandable that Fred Thompson fever is increasing around the time of the White House Correspondents' Dinner. In spring, Washington's political class falls in love with B-list celebrities. But the Thompson love fest is no mere fling. It will endure as long as only 65 percent of Republicans say they are happy with the current field of presidential candidates and as long as the actor and semiretired politician continues to flirt. Last Wednesday, Thompson met with 50 or so House Republicans and left most of them with the impression that he was running for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Not even well written.
Whoa — he’s a former trial lawyer. EEEEEgads! That’s a deal breaker. /s
Given all the democrat dirty dealings, I think we need a GOP lawyer POTUS.
The fear of Fred is fascinating.
John puts the ‘Dick’ in Dickerson.
The most alarming part of the article is the doofus saying Fred is convincing as a president on TV, so he’ll make a good president. Harrison Ford was an excellent president in “Air Force One,” Edward Herrmann convincingly played FDR numerous times - the list goes on. Does anyone think that’s a qualification for leadership of the Free World?
Absolutely idiotic.
I also think he puts the "son" in SOB.
The part about gay marriage/civil unions is also pointless. The twice-defeated Federal Marriage Amendment would permit New Hampshire (and any other state) to do just what they have done in legislatively enacting civil unions. Opponents of the FMA falsely said that it would ban civil unions as well as gay marriage, but that’s not true; it permits civil unions so long as they are voluntarily adopted. It would forbid the courts from imposing civil unions, however, just as it should. It is this court-neurtralizing aspect that the Left hates most, as it would guarantee that the current policy of most states — i.e. no recognition for gay relationships no matter what they are called — remains on the books.
The article about NH linked to in the Slate piece is actually somewhat interesting in its honesty. I mean, of course it has the usual bias as it ends typically by giving the Left the last word, but it does have civil unions proponents being upfront about their strategy. First of all they admit that civil unions is gay marriage w/o the word ‘marriage’ (thus making clear the need for those who hold the bizarre ‘gay marriage-no, civil unions-yes’ position to pick a side). Secondly, they admit that the goal is to use civil unions (and the inevitable media cheerleading of them) to build support for getting the word marriage too a few years later.
Going back to Thompson; this article has very little substance. Its kind of hard for pro-Bush conservatives to fault Thompson for Campaign Finance Reform when the President signed it into law. All in all, Thompson still stacks up nicely against Giuliani/McCain/Romney from a conservative perspective.
If you read the comments following that Slate hit piece, you’ll see the following:
Subject: Falling for Fred
From: Sturm Ruger
Date: Apr 21 2007 7:37AM
Isn’t it more than just a little bit disingenuous to make Fred Thompson’s vote against impeaching bill Clinton for perjury a major point without even mentioning that Thompson voted to impeach for obstruction of justice?
This is just the sort of tactic being used by Rudy McRomney supporters in their desperation to head off a Thompson run for the GOP nomination. To see John Dickerson employ it so shamelessly leads me to question what horse he’s backing in this race.
Perjury is the harder to prove of the two charges. From then Senator Thompson’s statement explaining why he did not vote to convict on the perjury article:
“Never has the Senate convicted on an article worded such as this. Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury. At the outset, it is clear that a count such as this in an indictment would not survive court challenge...”
“Make no mistake, perjury is a felony, and its commission by a President may sometimes constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. But is removal appropriate when the President lied about whether he was refreshing his recollection or coaching a witness about the nature of a sexual relationship? Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as `occasional’? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office.”
“In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers’ view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses, or that only acts that will jeopardize the future of the nation warrant removal of the President. It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.”
Obstruction of justice is the more serious of the two articles. Again, from then Senator Thompson’s sstatement explaining why he voted to convict on the obstruction article:
“Each and every allegation of obstruction of justice and witness tampering has thus been proven...”
“Time and again, and with premeditation, he was willing to use government personnel to assist in his coverup and his lies, acknowledging part of the truth only when confronted with physical evidence. And he carried his lies and cover up right on into legal proceedings with the grace and ease of someone who regarded a court of law as deserving of no more respect than if he were dealing with a stranger on the street. It is this persistent relentless, remorseless pattern of conduct that requires a verdict of guilty. He was willing to lie, defame, hide evidence and enlist anyone necessary, including government employees over and over again. At every juncture when he had the opportunity to stop, relent or come clean with a forgiving public, he chose instead to go forward. And even today he refuses to acknowledge the damage he has done to the Presidency and the Judiciary, choosing instead to rely upon his high job approval rating and acknowledging only what he is forced to after the production of physical evidence.”
“At a time when all of our institutions are under assault, when the Presidency has been diminished and the Congress is viewed with scepticism, our Judiciary and our court system have remarkably maintained the public’s confidence. Now the President’s actions are known to every school child in America. And in the midst of these partisan battles, many people still think this matter is just `lying about sex.’ But little by little, there will be a growing appreciation that it is about much more than that. And in years to come, in every court house in every town in America, juries, judges, and litigants will have the President’s actions as a bench mark against which to measure any attempted subversion of the judicial process. The notion that anyone, no matter how powerless, can get equal justice will be seen by some as a farce. And our rule of law — the principle that many other countries still dream about — the principle that sets us apart, will have been severely damaged. If this does not constitute damage to our government and our society, I cannot imagine what does. And for that he should be convicted.”
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
LOL! Dickerson describes himself as fascinated and a little puzzled over the growing support for Fred.
He then goes on to describe all of Fred’s potential flaws as he THINKS we will see them. He neatly avoids (perhaps because he’s unaware of it) the reasons Fred voted as he did during impeachment.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
What Dickerson doesn’t touch on is the character of the man and his ability to distill complex issues into simple, persuasive and reasoned arguments. One of the keys to Fred is that he’s talking with us..not at us.
Dickerson is not alone in his confusion. Plenty of others don’t get Fred. Yet.
GMTA:)
Puzzled. What a dolt. LOL
Fear of Fred.
They obviously can't find anything new with which to attack Fred. I'm only surprised he didn't mention the cancer thingy.
If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
Why are leftist writers so lacking in grammar, editing and basic writing skills? You see it every day.
The picture I can’t seem to get out of my mind is Fred vs Hillary in a debate:)
I think the Repubs are fielding a very deep and diverse array of candidates. I’m surprised only 65% of Repubs are satisfied with the choices.
Add a little ‘eye of Newt’ and you’ve got the ingredients for a winner.
Sure beats the flawed ‘2 and a half deep’ Dem field. Throw in a little Peter Paul video/lawsuit and Hillary probably tanks. No wonder Ketchup Boy is still flip flopping on running again.
He looks like a leader, he walks like a leader, he acts like a leader, he writes like a leader, he sounds like a leader.
And he has been a solid conservative his whole career.
Why do those who adored Clinton’s “style/charm/slickness” have such trouble appreciating the effects of genuine personality/style/charisma in a conservative?
It may be a superficial factor, but there is no dispute that Fred’s assets aren’t genuine.
Thank you for posting that comment. This was one thing that bothered me about Thompson. I’d never seen this explanation before.
Newt disqualified himself in my view; he's too busy warning everyone about Manbearpig and trying to kiss John Kerry.
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.