Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
bump for later reading.
So this whole attack on Fred is led by a couple of Hunter bots. Well thanks two you and Dick Bachert, I wouldn't vote for Hunter for dog catcher.
He was a Democrat most of his life, a California Democrat at that. Then he was a California Republican, which is akin to a Massachusetts conservative at best. He was liberal on many things, just not on national security and the Cold War.
Thompson is at least as conservative as Reagan ever was.
Reagan is my favorite leader because of his ability to lead, to communicate with despots, allies and average Joe’s, all at the same time.
Those are the qualities that cause people to compare Thompson to Reagan. Although they are very likely equally conservative as well.
Oh, for crying out loud. This Viguerie guy is a buffoon. The Clintons and their flying monkeys took out two Speakers of the House of the Representatives by playing smashmouth during the impeachment wars - but of course The Satanic Pair should have been "easy meat" for Thompson.
I'd say his article is a waste of time.
“But unlike Rudy McRomney, he’s a candidate most every conservative can vote for without selling out their principles.”
And you just don’t get the feeling that he will knife us in the back like McCain or Jorge or Rudy or (even) Mitt.
I want a bumper sticker that says “Run Hillary Run!”
for my truck’s front bumper...
No.
There’s no such thing as a “conservative” career politician.
Just career politicians who pander more to the right than the left.
No conservative would ever make a lifes career out of political service.
Thanks for the post. By the way, I often opine in the direction of the original poster. I’ve noticed that I am not the only one. So don’t take responses personally.
Here are a smattering of Mr. Thompson’s ‘Special Interest Group Ratings’ which always speak volumes to me on any candidate:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003
“2001-2002 Thompson supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2001-2002.”
“2002 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2002, Thompson voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.” (Phyllis Schlafly’s group.)
“2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Education Association 0 percent in 2000.”
“1998 On the votes that the National Organization for Women considered to be the most important in 1998, Thompson voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.”
“2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 90 percent in 2001.”
“2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Non Commissioned Officers Association 100 percent in 2001.”
“2000 Thompson supported the interests of the Military Officers Association of America 100 percent in 2000.”
“2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2001.”
“2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Californians for Population Stabilization 0 percent in 2001.”
That's your choice of course, but don't blame it on me... I have had very little to do with this thread at all... hardly enough to be accused of attacking anyone.
-Bruce
Either way, why would that bother anyone?
Just because posters point out Fred's flaws doesn't make the Hunter advocates.
Use your head. Did you ever thing some people are just patriotic conservative Americans who want the same in the White House? I, for one, want NOTHING to do with anyone who's a member or affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations....a globalist organization pushing for the erasure of American sovereignty and in favor of the NAU.
LOL You can't be taken seriously. Troll somewhere else.
That’s the best approach in this case, from what I’ve seen.
Thompson has a much longer history than that, of prosecuting corrupt politicians. This bothers you for some reason?
Do you defend the Clinton’s too? Did Thompson call for criminal prosecution of the Clinton’s just to dance for the Clinton press club?
This might be the most insane assertion I’ve heard yet...
It goes to credibility.
If a Joan Crawford wannabe like Angelina Jolie can get in, they obviously take anybody.
Jolie was INVITED to join because she could be useful to them as a public relations asset. Your and my personal opinions about Jolie's qualifications and desirability as a member are irrelevant, she still had to go through the process of submitting an application and securing a letter of nomination from an existing CFR member, plus two letters from other Council members seconding her nomination. Once these requirement were satisfied and her application reviewed and approved by the membership committee, she was invited to join. That's how it works. As I said previously, CFR membership is not open to the general public, and you can't just send them $25 or $25,000 and get your shiny new membership card.
They do have something they call Corporate Memberships, but those too have to be applied for and approved (along with some hefty membership dues). In this case as well, however, the same nomination, seconding, committee approval and invitation process applies. However, once a company has its Corporate Membership they don't get to "enroll all their employees". The company is the member, not the individual employees. They merely get to designate certain employees or corporate executives to participate in CFR sponsored meetings, symposiums, etc., receive copies of "Foreign Affairs", and other PR stuff.
You can find all this information easily at http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/
There is nothing secret or mysterious about it, but it does not work the way you said, and it is not true that "anybody" can be a member. "Anybody" can apply, of course, but whether or not you'll be accepted and invited to join depends more on whether or not they feel you'll be a useful asset to them than it does on your personal qualifications. That is how and why people like Angelina Jolie become members.
... In 1972 Nixon was re-elected in one of the most massive landslide elections in U.S. political history, defeating George McGovern and garnering over 60% of the popular vote. He carried 49 of the 50 states, trailing only in Massachusetts.
... The coup that overthrew President Nixon was largely orchestrated by Senator Edward Kennedy to reverse the left-repudiating 1972 election and serve Kennedy's presidential ambitions. This coup led to Communist victory in Vietnam, toppling dominoes in Southeast Asia, and encouragement to left revolutionary movements worldwide. It also allowed Kennedy and his liberal media allies to identify the tragic Vietnam War not with President John F. Kennedy, who committed the first 17,000 armed troops there, but with Republican President Nixon.
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.