Posted on 01/21/2008 3:28:34 AM PST by bd476
"...As soon as Thompson entered the race, analysts began wondering aloud why he got in, saying that he didn't show the fire in the belly that's necessary to run successfully for president. The image of Thompson as a laid-back slowpoke became fodder for late-night television comedians.
Woodard said that Thompson finally appeared to hit his stride on the stump in the Palmetto State, speaking to overflow crowds in the past week.
"Here's what happens when you're a candidate -- you get better as you go along," he said. "The problem is Huckabee's got a three-month jump on him. Fred is a good, tough candidate. If he was like this in September, things might be different."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Not the same tape as on ICaught’s website.
You have your opinion, and I have mine.
Here is another audio clip where Fred Thompson laments the existence of the income tax system saying “lowering the rates always to me is a good thing, but they can always be raised again”. He doesn’t endorse the fairtax, but now he endorses the continued existence of the same income tax system that allows rates to be raised (again)?
http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/FredThompsonOnFT-070710.wax
I’ll escape to some Caribean backwater. Or, if they put tight security on the airports, Mexico is going to need a really high fence to keep out all the gringos.
ROFLMAO
I don’t believe in any fairy tale scenarios, but Fred seemed to be hitting his stride last week and I’m glad he’s staying in. He’ll continue to get money and support from me.
This is January. A lot can happen by July. Keep your powder dry.
This is said a lot around here. We keep giving excuses but we never see results. That is all that matters. Show me the votes!
I don’t know.
I understand what you are saying here, but I can also see how it can be easily interpreted my way.
Wouldn’t you agree that a better way to say this, to bolster your point, would be to say “25% on income after the first $100,000”?
Notwithstanding, his plan is “optional”. Is this reform or not? In either case, exersizing the option or not, he is still advocating for a progressive income tax; something he has denounced previously.
ROTFLMAO! That was great! There is the Church of FRed mentality around here. The problem is the same people were the “head in the sand” we are saying we were going to gain seats in the Senate in 2006. I just wish they could be realistic and live in the real world. That is not hard to do, heck I try everyday. lol.
You want so badly to find some controversy that you come up with crap like that?
RangerM does not need to find controversy. How about results? That is what matters. I guess you don’t understand elections. The main objective is to win! Hopefully you will understand that soon.
I think the end part was the same video. Regardless, there is no unedited video where the question is clearly audible.
perhaps a term for Hillary that is just as successful as Jimmeh Cahrters is what we need to point us in the right direction again.
Your forgetting the most important part of this election. The Supreme Court! Three seats most likely. Three liberal seats is what you risk having...
Rush has sold us out too.
He wanted to see Fred do more. He wanted to see Fred win at least one state first.
And how would you reconcile the Hannity clip with his now tacit acceptance of the progressive income tax system?
or is Thompson ok with a progressive income tax system?
How are we supposed to affect primary results in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina if we don’t live there?
Nevada and Wyoming too.
“...on income above these amounts.”
Seems pretty clear to me.
I am not a fan of Fred’s plan, I just wanted to make sure nobody has misconstrued it.
I think it is both Progressive and completely untaxes a large number of voters. Both of which are bad ideas, in my opinion. I would have been MUCH happier if he had come out with a Flat rate 10% no deductions, no exemptions, no credits, no phony corporate taxes plan.
When people screamed, “That will be a huge tax increase for the poor!” he should have replied, “Even the poor in this country should support the government that protects their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Ten cents on the dollar is not too much to pay for that protection.” When people screamed, “But the poor already pay very high regressive FICA taxes !” he should have replied, “FICA taxes do not pay for one single dime of national security, judiciary, infrastructure, welfare, or any other general government expenditure. FICA taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare only, and people are paying those taxes to receive credits for future benefits from those insurance programs. Let’s not confuse the cost of government with the cost of insurance programs people are contributing to for their own benefit.”
Please name me some specific 'terrible' things Romney did, and please don't include the bogus claim that Romney forced a $50 co-pay for abortions because it has been shown ad naseum on FR how the Massachusetts Supreme Court, backed by decisions of the US Supreme Court, forced the state to accept an abortion co-pay provision....
On the OTHER hand, here are some PROLIFE things Gov. Romney did in Massachusetts.
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
- Governor Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
- Governor Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
- Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
No I haven’t forgotten, I’m just out of “benefit of the doubt” and as such I do not trust any of the others to make appointments as I would have them.
The joke of the day is the crap they are spouting (right now) about tax rebates........to people who don’t pay income taxes in the first place.
They certainly don’t have a problem taking it away in progressive amounts, but giving it back that way is another matter.
I know.
I was sickened yesterday that Chris Wallace didn’t correct Shumer when he fell into the “but the poor pay huge FICA taxes” refrain.
I wish he’d asked, “So are you suggesting that this tax rebate come from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that we put those programs in even more dire financial trouble ?”
People do not seem to care about the separation of these taxes and the expenditures they are supposed to be dedicated to. They want the “consolidated budget” so they can claim poor people pay taxes, but that logically makes SS/M a pure welfare system.
"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." — Mitt Romney, Massachussets Governor election debate October 29, 2002
"Every action I have taken as governor of Massachussets has been pro-life."
— Mitt Romney, Republican Debate, August 5, 2007
Mitt Romney Flip-Flop on Abortion (Video)
Romney's Flip-flops on Abortion (More Video)
Nice list, but what did he do to FURTHER the life cause?
These were all defended by his policial position that he would defend the status quo.
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.