Posted on 09/13/2007 3:03:06 AM PDT by AmericanMade1776
Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain-Feingold, but said "I don't support that" provision of it.
Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress' especially "compelling interest" in squelching issue ads that "influence" elections?
Most lamely, Thompson takes credit for McCain-Feingold doubling the amount of "hard money" an individual can give to a candidate, which he says reduces the advantages of incumbency. But that is absurd: Most hard money flows to incumbe
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
DH is not polling well, slim pickings.
You do know that George Will is a huge shill for Rooty Giuliani? Will supports Rooty lock, stock and barrel. This is a bogus hitpiece. Next time try posting an article by Deroy Murdock. He’s another Rooty butt kisser. Lock your lips and load.
That is a bold face lie. Get your facts straight.
Here are links to the transcripts of three of President Reagan's addresses to the Annual Right To Life March. Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally January 22, 1986 and Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally January 22, 1987 and Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally January 22, 1988
>>>>>When he was California’s governor he signed into law Cali ‘s first Abortion law.
The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law did not grant abortions on demand. It was specific to the exceptions of substantial risk that would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, along with rape and incest. It was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the diffcult abortion cases. Within a year the new abortion law was being abused for all types of reasons. This was exactly what Reagan wqas afraid of. Reagan publically stated, it was a mistake and rejected.
Discernment, Discernment, Discernment!
Some of us have it!:)
He's polling solidly in the low asterisks.
Then you haven’t been listening.
Coming from the same guy that is licking Rudy’s unmentionables every chance he gets, and trumpeting Rudy’s “conservative” successes as mayor of NYC?
Puulleeze.
I saw him state that he didn't like how it had turned out. I have not seen him call for any repeal of any part. Do you have a link?
What has bothered me most is Fred’s body language while announcing for President. He didn’t smile. He didn’t look at the camera. He was bored. Anyone that disinterested in their own candidacy is a blank slate for others to write on. If Fred wants my vote, he is going to have to look me in the eye and tell me why he wants to be President. I still haven’t heard that story yet.
I was of course, referring to his time prior to the presidency. His positions were clear and nobody questioned what he'd do as president. And again, I'd like to know what part Fred played during the 1976 and 1980 Reagan primary efforts. I've never heard him mention which state primary organization he was helping out the Reagan people with.
I've been saying this for awhile, actually, and I sort of have come to terms with it. But the thing is, the simple fact is people don't LIKE her. We cannot predict the election's outcome, as much as we would like to so we can begin accepting the painful truth.
I agree to an extent. But long before he was even talked about as a candidate, I liked Thompson, and I don't think I'm alone in that. His manner is most refreshing.
Fred Thompson is
weak on the border
weak on gay marriage
weak on tort reform
refuses to sign a pledge saying he won’t raise taxes.
I can’t believe how many conservatives have sold out the border wall, a federal marriage amendment, and given this guy carte blache with our taxes.
All for a pretty, sweet-talking voice who looks like grandpa.
What is the appeal? I’m a Tennesseean. I don’t see it.
>>>That is the oddest thing I have seen. You support Mitt, but like Duncan and eschew Fred, who is closer to Hunter than Mitt by a mile...<<<
Nothing weird about it in my eyes.
And I thoroughly disagree with you that Thompson is closer to Hunter. Maybe in body shape, but that’s about it.
I like Duncan Hunter far more than Fred Thompson. I initially supported Hunter, as well. Gave to his campaign and did some grassroots stuff for him. I just don’t see him as an effective salesman on a national level, and I eventually came to prefer Romney, who I’m now pulling for in the Primary.
Romney’s stances have been tougher on the border than Thompson’s, and that’s a primary issue with me and a reason I initially liked Hunter. I also like Romney’s business acumen, energy, and intelligence.
Hunter has served his country well. And if he wanted to run again in San Diego, I could see it happening. He’d do far better on a local level where he doesn’t need instant camera appeal.
Hitlery is a slightly different dimension given that she’s female—biologically anyway. I think she will lose some Democrat women. Of course, the idiot Demrat women that took their daughters to the Monica Lewinski book signing will no doubt perform to type.
It is pretty amazing that the voting public of this country—particularly women—is as dumbed down as it is. The big question for me is how do we recapture education from the leftist teacher unions?
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.