"I am warning you Conservatives! BEWARE this Fred Thompson fellow. He is pro-Gun Contr....errr....Hey, watch out! Thompsen is pro-Aborti......errr....ahhhhh. Listen to me - I am warning you! This guy is pro-Homosexual Marriag....errrr....ummmmmm."
I realize that I will most likely get the living crap kicked outta me for even POSTING this but, in the interests of providing another point-of-view on an emerging candidate, I feel honesty -- and prudence -- requires a close examination of voting patterns and records so, as in the Who song of years ago, "We Won't be Fooled Again."
Viguerie has proven himself to be an accurate and competent researcher and purveyor of factual information in the past. I have no reason to believe he is treating Fred Thompson any differently.
Must hurry now and don my ASBESTOS UNDIES nnd NOMEX suit in anticipation of the impending 2000 degree flames heading my way.
We don’t shoot the messenger......now as for the author of the article, he’s fair game.
Better Fred than dead.
I take it this guy thinks only hardliners and Reagan worshipers vote.
"I am warning you Conservatives! BEWARE this Fred Thompson fellow. He is pro-Gun Contr....errr....Hey, watch out! Thompsen is pro-Aborti......errr....ahhhhh. Listen to me - I am warning you! This guy is pro-Homosexual Marriag....errrr....ummmmmm."
I realize that I will most likely get the living crap kicked outta me for even POSTING this
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Absolutely
Who the hell are you to spead rumors?
This article is a plant by the democrat underground.
Why spread this Sh#@!
take it down.
I realize that I will most likely get the living crap kicked outta me for even POSTING this
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Absolutely
Who the hell are you to spead rumors?
This article is a plant by the democrat underground.
Why spread this Sh#@!
take it down.
Kinda thin stuff, don’cha think?
BTW—Fred’s backtracked on most of the bad stuff, like McCain/Feingold.
That’s all ya got?
Let the rebuttal’s begin...as a former E.TN conservative, the mentorship of RINO’s like Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander does make my skin crawl!
As the Rudybots like to remind us, No candidate is perfect. Fred Thompson is a friend of John McInsane, and supported him on a lot of issues. That can lead a person in a lot of wrong directions.
That said, he ain’t Rudy Guiliani or John McInsane, and I’m willing to support him in the General. (I’ll be votin’ for Duncan Hunter in the Primary, most likely.)
First off, his votes are NOT that inconsistent with the image he has right now as a ‘08 contender. As we’ve said before, many of Fred’s votes were based in either a Federalist, “should-the-government-get-involved” point of view, or on Fred’s vast understanding of law. Also, as with any politician, some of his votes were probably because something in the bill wasn’t right.
Let’s be fair to him, and let him address them. I think that’s the standard we hold Rudy McRomney to.
Secondly, like it or not, the idea of Republican Conservatism, from what the vast unwashed public believes, is a major negative right now. I see Fred Thompson as the ONLY candidate/potential candidate who is communicating conservative ideas in a way that is appealing to the masses.
Third, out of the entire field, he’s by far the most conservative, ELECTABLE guy out there.
Any of these arguments made against Thompson apply WORSE for Giuliani.
McCain? He’s nuts and fading fast.
Romney? Well, Mitt’s my second-choice guy, but honestly, the man is a bit too slick for me, seemed undedicated to his job as governor, and I think the Mormon thing is more of an issue (not for me, but for some) than we care to admit. In and of itself, it’s overcome-able, but he has a lot of what appear to be flip-flops. Too many and too recent of a conversion, whereas Fred has not really “changed” on anything, rather, he has reasons for doing what he did then and now. To be fair, I’m sure Romney did as well, and that’s why he’s my second-in-line guy, but I really just don’t trust him, he seems too “slick” if that makes any sense.
Nobody else in the field is honestly worth discussing, whether we like to hear it or not. Discussing Hunter or Tancredo is like discussing what you’d do if you won the lottery: It’s a lot of fun fantasizing, but it’s just not going to happen.
Two problems with this article.
First is, it’s simply overstated and cherry-picked. Thompson scores solidly conservative across, or overwhelming agreed-in-votes with the positions taken by, a broad array of righty lobbies (Natl Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Govt Waste, Heritage, American Enterprise Institute, American Conservative Union, several pro-life organizations).
Second is more relative: Whom ELSE are we to choose? Not Rudy, surely. Duncan Hunter probably cannot win. So that leaves Romney ... who may be just fine, mind you, but just imagine how Viguerie would savage ROMNEY if he thinks Fred! is so terrible.
Mainstream media types assure us that he is [the next Ronald Reagan].
Which MSM type assures us of this. They are attacking FT with the same charges this guy repeats.
I say beware of conservatives that attack other conservatives who use liberal talking points in their attacks against other conservatives.
Thompson may just as well be another GWB instead of another Reagan. (Let’s face it - there will never be another Reagan, so stop looking for another).
GWB acted like a conservative on taxes,in his response to terrorism, Soc.Sec. reform, on the issues of abortion and EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, the UN, healthcare reform.
GWB acted like like a liberal on Medicare, the border, education, and federal spending.
That’s what Thompson will be, I believe, another GWB.
I dont think I want Queen Hillary, so I’ll vote Thompson.
But then again, when compared to,,,
a pro-authoritarian, pro-bullying govt, pro-intrusive govt, pro-more controlling 'Big Brother' type of govt,,,,,,
and a pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-litigation, gun-grabbing, gay rights crusading, arrogant, narcissistic New York LIBERAL lawyer like JulieAnnie,,,,
whose personal life is an absolute TRAIN WRECK (almost making Bill Clinton look like a decent family man and loving husband--if that is even possible),,,,
WHO ISN'T???
Since Goldwater, all prez elections have come down to who you gonna vote AGAINST!
< /s >
Where does one start with these bald-faced lies?
http://fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/search/label/Federalism
Federalism:
Federalism- official position 2002 Federalism
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a federal government of limited and defined powers, with most governmental activity taking place at the state and local levels. This fundamental principle of "federalism," embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been circumvented in recent decades as the federal government has infringed on state sovereignty and concentrated more power in Washington. Senator Thompson has been working to reverse this trend and to return power to states and communities. He has been an independent voice for a smaller federal government, and has cast his vote against measures to federalize what should be state and local issues.
There is renewed interest in the relationship between the federal government, states and localities as Congress seeks to improve the effectiveness of federal programs and determine which programs are best administered at the state or local levels. The federal presence in state and local government is large, witnessed by the fact that federal grants comprise 23 percent of total state spending. However, many things required by the federal government are never paid for by the federal government. Senator Thompson is concerned with the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, which force our nation's governor's, mayors, and other state and local elected officials to raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for them.
The Tenth Amendment was designed to protect states from Washington's big government tendencies ? but this pillar of our Democracy was attacked by the Clinton Administration. In 1998, President Clinton tried to overturn the long-standing Reagan executive order on federalism with a new order that justified federal intervention in state and local affairs. Senator Thompson offered an amendment on the Senate floor, which passed unanimously, calling on the President to revoke his executive order. The new executive order was suspended shortly thereafter.
In June of 1999, Senator Thompson introduced the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214). The bill was approved by a bi-partisan vote of 12-2 by the Governmental Affairs Committee in August of that year, but did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The Federal Accountability Act would have required the report accompanying any public bill or joint resolution from a Senate and House committee or conference report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill or resolution preempts state or local government law and the reasons for this preemption. The Act would also have established a rule of construction providing that courts would not construe a statute or regulation to preempt state or local law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct conflict with state law.
---------
That is as conservative a legislative proposal I have seen over the last decade.
Fred lost me when he started hiring Bush’s old cronies.
Might as well deal with all of this now. Is it true? Isn’t it true? Does it matter if it’s true? Is it in context, or not? [”It”=any of the statements in the article.]
A genuine quest for the truth is good. I just cannot stand hit-pieces that some around here post, followed by a smarmy “Oh, I could vote for Fred. He’s my #2 choice.”