Posted on 07/07/2007 6:55:52 AM PDT by Josh Painter
FRED THOMPSON has decided not to declare his candidacy anytime soon, and it's not hard to see why...
Behind the scenes, Thompson and his die-hard supporters are quietly building a huge nationwide campaign for the White House.
In the past 10 days, "Fred's Fans" have:
* Raised more than $1 million with just two fund-raisers, including $300,000 in Atlanta last night.
* Hired key operatives around the country and are in talks with several more recently laid off by John McCain's crumbling presidential campaign.
* Made significant strides toward the nearly $5 million that Thompson's "First Day Founders" have committed to raising as seed money for a full-fledged presidential campaign.
In doing so, Thompson has shown he can raise as much cash as other Republicans who have been in the field for months, if not years...
McCain insiders admit that a major reason they are nearly broke with no real prospects for recovery is that they rushed out and bought a big national campaign way before they were in a position to pay for it.
Thompson isn't going to make that mistake...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
With all due respect, which isn't much in my view, this isn't about either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter with you.
What this looks like to me is that with you it's all about Old_Mill.
True. Unless it's Senator vs Ex-Senator.
That’s the problem with you Fred people. instead of posting a reasoned response to a legitimate question like advance did, you go into full on attack mode against whoever poses a question about your candidate. This is more about the ideology of the man that we chose to represent us, not his name.
The "lobbying in support of abortion" charge is BS. It's brought to you by an abortionist who doesn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned like Fred does.
You spread her propaganda.
I don’t quite understand where you’re coming from with that question. The answer would be ‘no.’
My point was that, while Hunter is from California, he cannot “deliver” the state. I think that you and I happen to agree on that.
Here’s what I had to say on another thread:
“Let’s say this is the real truth: Fred Thompson, a lawyer, had an office in a Washington law firm and lent them his name as a rainmaker.
“Now let’s say that a client walks in the front door and says they want some legal work/lobbying done and the law firm takes on the client, even trotting Fred out for a meet and greet.
“Now let’s say that the client walks away thinking that Fred’s going to do the work, but that may not be the case. Fred may only have been introduced to them and nothing more. Sombody a lot cheaper than Fred Thompson probably wrote a few letters and maybe even stopped by someone’s office.
“The story peddled by the client is that Fred lobbied White House official John L. Sununu. But Sununu says, ‘I don’t recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don’t think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened.’
“What does Fred have to say? Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said, ‘Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.’
‘Frankly, I believe Thompson did NOT lobby for this group. If he did lobby for them, there would be billing records to prove it, and they would have been printed in the LA Slimes right there on the front page next to the lead.
“His only sin seems to be that he had an office in the law firm of Arent Fox.”
How is this different from what advance said?
My sin, if I have one, is losing patience with people who ought to know better, but still parrot the latest liberal lies against good conservatives. You’ll search my posts and you’ll NEVER find one dumping on Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or any good conservative.
I support Fred Thompson because he is an articulate, likable conservative who can win. I just can’t see spending much effort on fruitless quests. I want to win.
Yes, and contrast that to Rudy who in 1989 was originally against Roe v. Wade.
You may be right, but I haven't really heard much of what they might be other than that they are generally conservative and that he is against illegal immigration.
But your implication that Fred Thompson is NOT out there expressing ideas is so entirely wrongheaded that I can't imagine where such a notion could come from. Fred's support stems directly from the fact that he HAS been out there expressing ideas, on almost every subject of interest to Americans.
I just want a candidate that understands national security and not only wants our borders secured and our current immigration laws enforced, but actually gets WHY we are opposed to shamnesty and isn't afraid to say it.
I want a candidate that understands the second amendment and not only understands the importance of appointing conservative judges to stop judicial tyranny, but also understands how precious life is.
I want a candidate that won't pander to European socialists and is willing to tell the Mexican government how things are, as well as being willing to actually say how useless the UN is.
I also feel it is extremely important to nominate a candidate that can articulate conservatism in a way that everyone can understand, to counter the demagoguery of the left. I like a candidate who can explain why tax cuts are good for our economy and can show man-made global warming for the joke that it is. It would be refreshing to see a candidate explain why we should back Israel and make damn sure Iran never gets a nuke.
Wouldn't it be great to have a candidate that see's CAIR for what it is? Even better to have a candidate that calls out Democrats for being the defeatist losers that they are.
While we're dreaming the impossible dream and looking for this perfect candidate, I'd also like to throw in that I would love to nominate a candidate who can use the new media to his advantage and get around old media liberal bias.
I don't know where we'd ever find such a candidate, but if we can find him, we'll do well in 2008. :)
Hunter voted for the CFR follow-up.
Hunter is your candidate, you seriously didn't know that?
Different circumstances.
A homosexual is working for Fred
Rudy worked for homosexuals
If I understand what your (actually gets Why we are opposed to shamnesty) youtube link presented is that he stated we want our borders secured before any amnesty. No thanks I say no amnesty at all. The end of the line forms in other countries, go there and wait your turn.
I guess I should have been a little clearer and said as declared candidates.
That’s not what he says there at all. What he’s doing there at the beginning is drawing a correlation between national security and our open borders. After that, he hits it right on the head that we don’t trust their bill to secure the border, because we’ve been duped by them before. There sure aren’t too many people out there saying such things.
I think you’re talking about something else he wrote:
The only way someone could interpret what you get out of it though, is a severe lack of ability to understand sarcasm.
While we’re on the subject, here’s a great interview with Mark Levin from the day the original bill was introduced:
http://jebstersr.freepgs.com/MLFAudio/FredThompson051807.wma
You wouldn’t be saying that we should discount the open expressions of ideas from a candidate if he hasn’t officially declared yet, are you?
I don’t have an issue with whom Fred hires unless they are policy advisors.
Let’s say his education advisor is a homosexual activist who mhas spent decades with the NEA.....then it’s danger Will Robinson.
if this guy’s job is just to organize campaign efforts then who cares...
They’ve been out for months in Tennessee. I saw the first one in March. it must have been a FReeper! :^)
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.