Do you really believe George Will, the Rudy McRomney shill?
Fredipedia v2.37: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Posted on 06/03/2007 8:23:16 PM PDT by pillut48
Are you saying it is a job for a man with cancer?
How many times do I have to Quote you? Ok, one more time.
It’s not a job for a man with cancer.
The stress ages the healthy ones beyond reason.
Those are your words "not mine" on Post #11.
Make me a generous offer, and I will cheerfully agree to sign on to the apparent and thoroughly mysterious passion for that, uh, exercise in narcissism.
For my part only, you can rest completely assured that ''mommy'' doesn't apply.
Good words, huh?
Can’t take the heat, huh?
No, not for a conservative.
Since when was Lymphoma Cancer a standard rejection for the Presidency?
You have yet to explain yourself.
See post #11
Nevermind that it’d have to be simultaneous. If Fred’s cancer were to come back and kill him, then the VP would have to die immediately, as well. Otherwise he’d have time to select a VP of his own. So I fail to see any reason to worry.
That’s silly.
If Fred had to step down, the VP would become President, and would appoint a new VP.
If both the President and the VP were taken out at the exact same time, it wouldn’t have anything to do with Fred’s cancer.
Well, great minds, and all that stuff....
:)
Thompson worked to get many of the offensive parts of CFR changed. He was solely interested in rooting out corruption.
******
I agree with you that Thompson’s support for McCain-Feingold is serious. I did some research on it, and found that while he did indeed support campaign finance “reform,” he was not in lockstep with McCain about the details. Below is a list of campaign finance “reform” votes where Thompson’s and McCain’s votes differed. Most significantly, Thompson introduced an amendment that would increase hard money contribution limits. McCain voted to kill discussion of Thompson’s amendment, but Thompson prevailed, and the amendment passed (with McCain ultimately voting for it). In the discussion of this amendment, Thompson specifically noted that individual contributions are free speech.
For me, this doesn’t fully mitigate Thompson’s support for McCain-Feingold, but it does seem to add credence to Thompson’s recent criticisms of the bill.
CFR related items where Thompson departed from McCain
March 19, 2001 - April 2, 2001
Votes 00037-00064
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_107_1.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00037
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00038
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00046
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00047
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00049
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00053 (this was Thompson’s amendment to increase hard money contributions — McCain voted to kill it)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107Kv5YyZ:e0 (here is the discussion)
:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00054
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00055 (this is the final vote on Thompson’s successful amendment to increase hard money limits. McCain ended up supporting it, although he tried to kill it)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00056
83 posted on 04/02/2007 3:42:39 PM EDT by ellery
******
Official Position 2002-Campaign Finance Reform
Americans have less and less faith in their government. One of the main reasons is that they are distrustful of the system we have in place to elect our political leaders. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both political parties raise to elect their candidates and they ask: “Where does such a system leave the average citizen with his or her $100 contribution?”
Senator Thompson too has the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. He believes that an excellent witness on this topic is Barry Goldwater. In testifying before Congress in 1983, he said that big money “eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interests groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than their political duties. If present trends continue, voter participation will drop significantly, public respect will fall to an all time low, political campaigns will be controlled by slick packaging artists, and neglect of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government operations.” His predictions were accurate and his concerns are still valid today.
Senator Thompson witnessed first hand the corruption in our campaign finance system during the Governmental Affairs Committee’s special investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns. The Committee exposed a campaign finance system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600-page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations.
Senator Thompson has been a supporter of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation. That bill would ban the unlimited amounts of soft money that currently flow into the coffers of the national parties and helped create the numerous scandals and violations we saw in the 1996 presidential campaign. Senator Thompson believes that by banning soft money contributions and fully disclosing the source of donations to political campaigns the American people will be able to have more confidence that the decisions made by their leaders
She was my favorite. I think that’s when I stopped watching.
“Can Thompson take Reagan’s mantle”?
I wonder if any of the media will ask that question regarding .......
hillary clinton and bill clinton!!!!!?
What heat?
See post 17.
Ever heard of President Ford?
Fred was diagnosed a few years ago with what’s called an “indolent” lymphoma. He had no symptoms then nor now. Took a form of treatment that’s highly successful in placing the condition in remission. It’s unlikely that remission would reverse, but even if it did, a short course of medication would handle it. All in all, if one must have a lymphoma, this is the type to have.
Fred’s doctors have told him they don’t anticipate any impact on his campaign or presidency from the condition.
There is no valid reason to worry about the cancer issue, it's what used to be called a red herring. As you point out, the only way the Speaker could take the office would be for both the president and his VP to kick the bucket almost simultaneously.
I have to think that anyone who is using that non-issue against Fred is either misinformed about his cancer, or more likely, is not being open about who they really support and why they fear Fred.
No, but she did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
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.