Posted on 06/26/2007 1:00:05 PM PDT by napscoordinator
A discussion thread about Fred vs Duncan
Let’s leave it up to the visitors to this thread and others featuring your posts to decide if my accusation that “virtually your entire web presence is predicated on misrepresentation” is true or false.
From my perspective it’s obviously true, and the explanations of just why and how it’s true have been made over and over again by many posters, to no effect, so I won’t try to deveop those ideas yet again. It’s pointless. You are a partisan with an agenda and while you surround yourself with “facts” they are half-facts, facts taken out of context, facts placed in the wrong context, and incomplete facts.
All that effort, akin to “journalism,” turns facts into something else, something not true. That’s the essence of misrepresentation.
You stand accused.
And I stand by my assessment of both situations. Your aim does not appear to be anything other than to disrupt and belittle others. You have shown zero interest in having a debate of any kind.
When you cut off debate and refuse to do anything but force your side of the ‘facts’ over and over and over again, you ARE being DISHONEST. Plus, many of the things you have posted in the past are of a dubious nature or are compiled by sources with agendas. Half the truth is a lie. Hence my calling you a liar.
Your tactics smell, familyop.
Thanks for the sanity check, JimRob.
In comment #20 (on 20JUN) you (familyop) wrote:
""If Duncan Hunter invented...a cure for cancer," he could cure Fred Thompson's indolent lymphoma (now in remission)."
In comment #34 (on 20JUN) I (perfect_rovian_storm) replied:
"And yet the disgusting personality disorder that you obviously suffer from will remain unchecked. Sucks to be you."
You bring up Fred Thompson's cancer in a pathetic attempt to smear anything and everything you can and then have the audacity to actually quote my response as some kind of evidence of your alleged persecution?
familyop wrote: “...Fred Thompson... has no history in defense and little as a Senator.”
It’s one thing to post legitimate criticisms of Fred Thompson, and that’s allowed. But lying about Fred’s Senate record is quite another, and should not be allowed on this forum.
Some Duncan Hunter supporters have joined with the Left in attempting to diminish Thompson’s service in the U.S. Senate, and the word they’ve cut and pasted from their talking points memo is “undistinguished.” To me, this seems a suprising tact for the Democrats to take, especially given that collective accomplishments of the Senate careers of their three leading candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and John Edwards can’t even come close to measuring up to that of Fred Thompson. But hypocrisy never was something to stop, or even slow down, a liberal hell-bent on attacking an opponent. The media, as expected, and even the supporters of a few of Fred’s GOP opponents, sadly, have joined the Democrats in making these attacks on the nature of Fred Thompson’s Senate career.
Many on the left measure a legislator’s performance by the number of bills he or she introduced. John Kerry, for example, authored a number of measures, but many of them carried no greater weight than to name buildings, roads and airports after some hero or another of the left. When it comes to legislation, conservatives see quality as much more important than quantity.
Fred did plenty as a U.S. Senator. Most of the bills he introduced in that body were aimed at increasing our national security against terrorism, providing tax relief to citizens and small businesses and cutting government red tape. To list just a few of them, we have the Nuclear Proliferation Act, Special Counsel Act, Aviation Security Bill Amendment, FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Regulatory Right-To-Know Act, Homeland Security Workforce Act, Homeland Security Education Act, Thompson amendment to Treasury-Postal Title (Section 646) of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981), Thompson Amendment to the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act, Thompson Amendment to the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Act, The Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act, The Federalism Accountability Act, The Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA), The Thompson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, and The Truth in Regulation Act.
Fred Thompson is as distingushed by the bad legislation he helped to kill as he is by the good bills he proposed. One particularly nasty measure Fred courageously stood alone against was S507, which would have destroyed our country’s patent system, giving away many American innovations to foreign firms and governments.
According to a recent Cox News Service story, “Thompson chose the unglamorous work of trying to expose waste and reform the federal government. He put heat on federal agencies by holding hearings on mismanagement and by asking them to tote up the improper payments they made each year — about $20 billion altogether. The waste is far from stopped, but agencies are now required by law to disclose their annual overpayments, a practice that is credited for trimming the Department of Health and Human Services’ erroneous payments from $12.1 billion in 2005 to $10.8 billion in 2006.” Sounds like a good start to me.
The Cox article quoted Paul C. Light, a New York University professor and leading expert on government reform, who said of Senator Thompson, “I consider him to be one of the most dedicated overseers of the executive branch of the last 25 years.”
Thompson’s record on spending in the Senate puts the rest of the field to shame. Perhaps his supposed lack of what liberals consider “accomplishments” in the Senate are the result of what a Race 4 2008 article calls “a responsible legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.”
As a result of his consistent commitment to federalist principles and a smaller federal government, Sen. Thompson earned the “Restoring the Balance” Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures, given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators
Fred Thompson’s Senate committee work puts other presidential contenders to shame:
Member, Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96
Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98
Judiciary Subcommittes
- Chairman, Youth Violence, 1995-96
- Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, 1997-98
- Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information, 1995-98
Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee, 1997-2001
Ranking Minority Member, Governmental Affairs Committee, 2001-02
Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002
Finance subcommittees
- Member, International Trade, 1999-2002
- Member, Taxation and Oversight, 1999-2002
- Member, Social Security and Family Policy, 1999-2002
- Member, Health Care, 1999-2002
When Fred Thompson ran for the Senate he promised the people of Tennessee that he would work to protect our national security, make government work for families, and improve the way Washington does business. He made good on those promises with a record of achievement and leadership.
Democrats and supporters of Fred’s GOP opponents who try to dismiss his significant Senate accomplishments are being, at best, disingenuous.
In 1982, Thompson lobbied the U.S. Congress for deregulation of the Savings and Loan (S&L) industry. His recommendations were incorporated in the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982,[9] which allowed thrifts to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; eliminated interest-rate ceilings on new accounts; and granted additional government support to ailing S&Ls. This Act was a contributing factor to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson#Early_life
Don’t feed the trolls. :O)
So, am I to assume you’re going to continue to post facts, and refuse to toe the line? ;^)
bttt
familyop, how do you have any time to work FOR Duncan Hunter when you sppear to be spending all of your free time attacking Fred Thompson?
Your candidate is in trouble, and he needs you:
CNN/Opinion Research, June 22-24, Duncan Hunter 0%
Cook Report/RT Strategies, June 21-23, Duncan Hunter 0%
Newsweek Poll, June 20-21, Duncan Hunter 0%
Cook Report/RT Strategies, June 15-17, Duncan Hunter 1%
USA Today/Gallup, June 11-14, Duncan Hunter 2%
American Research Group, June 9-12, Duncan Hunter 1%
Harris Interactive, June 1-12, Duncan Hunter 1%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal, June 8-11, Duncan Hunter 1%
Quinnipiac University, June 5-11, Duncan Hunter 1%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, June 7-10, Duncan Hunter 1%
If you think that attacking Fred Thompson on the internet is going to somehow improve these numbers for Hunter, you’re sadly mistaken. The grassroots support for Fred Thompson is like a tidal wave. There’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.
You should be working phone trees, licking envelopes and ringing door bells for Hunter. I seriously doubt that Hunter, who is personally a fine man, would approve of your tactics. They don’t help him a bit, and they may actually be hurting him some.
Best response of the day. Thank you.
Easy. Duncan Hunter.
The other guy isn’t running.
OK, all that proves is that the party who hired him, got their money's worth. I remember when the deregulation bill went through, Ronald Reagan could have vetoed it, but it was believed to be part of trying to get the country back on its feet during the Carter-caused recession. Did bad people make risky loans with the taxpayers covering their butts? Sure. Was it Fred's fault? I don't think so.
Duncan Hunter is a great guy, and has a wonderful record, better than Fred's in some areas, but he hasn't done enough to be a known quantity by now. Even Joe Biden, who has had his face on hundreds of talk show appearances, isn't getting any traction.
Both men are electable, but I'm afraid that only Fred can be nominated.
When will Hunter prove he can lead his campaign? before trying to lead the country?
Fred’s leading the race without being in the race???
Duncan Hunter once wore diapers...
I know the S&L issues, lived through it. But the corporate greed and short sightedness was not Fred responsibility. he simply was in favor of LESS government.
I thought that’s what we are after as conservatives...
Agreed, but this nut has been slashing and burning every Fred thread on FR with the same crap over and over. His assertions have been debunked many times.
I like Hunter personally. I looked at him FIRST long ago and even prayed that he had the leadership ability to lead a national campaign. He has proven that he doesn’t have the ability to win...
I am equally comfortable with Fred Thompson, and he can win...
This nut can’t seem to grasp that, no matter how many freepers point it out.
I’m sick of his slash and trash tactics and I can see, so are a lot of others.
Politicalmom, I hope you don’t mind me reposting your comment on this thread, but it’s so good, I thought others might appreciate what you like about Fred.
~ <> ~
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856754/posts?page=81#81
“I examined his record in the Senate and his personal behavior.
I like what he tried to do in the senate. When he did something I didn’t like, he had very good reasoning, and even if I still didn’t agree, I had to concede his points.
I trust him. I know he loves this country and is a true conservative. I don’t need a detailed plan right now. I know he shares my beliefs about most things, so I expect to approve of his plans.
I don’t think he will disappoint me after watching him for over a decade.
I am sure that isn’t good enough for you, but it’s REALLY good enough for me.”
What was that again?
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.