Posted on 10/15/2007 7:57:12 PM PDT by rmlew
(CNSNews.com) - On Tuesday, the day Fred Thompson made his debate debut in the 2008 presidential race, two conservative commentators criticized how the former Tennessee senator handled the 1990s Senate probe into Clinton campaign fundraising corruption.
Thompson was chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1997, when the committee probed Chinese money that allegedly poured into the 1996 re-election campaign of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
"Had there been a legitimate investigation of Chinese money laundering, the results would have been very different from the results of Monica Lewinsky," said John Gizzi, political editor for Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper.
Gizzi was contrasting Clinton's campaign finance scandal - which he deemed far more serious - with the sex and perjury scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate in the late 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The correct response would be to hold a hearing with empty wintess seats bhinds the Clinton person and ask him why the following were let out and whether this is not obstruction of justice.
Oh come on, I dont have to do much search to find a nasty post calling him ‘Slick willard’ etc.
Like i said, I dont like this kind of trashing of other Republicans. There is enough material on Thompson to trash him, i dont like it but Fred voters started it and they are getting it back.
They would have never had the hearings at all if that were the case. Clinton would never send them, and neither side would have supported that format.
Laying all this at just Fred’s feet is folly (surprise) he was snookered from both teams.
Spot on, well said.
Or how about trying to use “remote diagnosis” on Fred illness to sell the idea he is sick still, despite his comments and his doctors information to the contrary?
Fred voters started nothing, Thompson was being trashed from the very mention of his candidacy. And as a general rule, with precious few exceptions, we stick to policy issues, not the wives of the people running.
In regards to the other crap you spouted about his approval of employers hiring illegal immigrants you need to prove it with facts or just stop lying.
I'm noting the truth. Thompson voted in favor of the Hatch Ammendment to S. 1664 to reduce fines against employers who hire illegal aliens
Voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to S. 1644, a vote against of increased interior enforcement
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/FThompsonPres08.html
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TN&VIPID=743&retired=1
You’ll excuse me if I don’t trust Howard Baker’s protege who has shown himself weak on China and weak on immigration and whose major selling point is his charisma and slot as token conservative for a liberal show.
That site is hoot, and I am glad you posted it. He has 11 Green checks and one red x and they give him a C+? Never been teachers before I guess.
He voted against that act because he did not feel it was time to punish business or put them in the position of immigration enforcement when the government was not doing it itself. Makes sense, why should I as a business man do what the government won't.
Other than that, if you could even call it a strike, the site YOU post, as well as others have shown FDT to be pretty strong on Immigration. His own position as is stated:
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:
Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
I'll put the link to you site in again, for future reference, it is useful to a point despite the somewhat odd grading. (11/12 is an A most places)
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/FThompsonPres08.html
The term ‘Slick Willard’ has been used as a reference for Clinton, and now to use it on Romney and compare him to the traitor is a hideous and repulsive tactic.
It is very evident Fred voters have been spamming Romney threads with namecalling and negativity and infact i dont even bother to post on such threads anymore as i know i cannot reason with such boofheads.
If some( a very minority) of Romney supporters are dishing it back on Fred, then it is understandable.
Seems you should be in charge in the Senate, I am sure they will do it your way...
Those 100 other bastards will have nothing on you, you whip ‘em in shape...
BTW, as I should have known, you missed the part about the issues with Thompson's own team, but I know, bloody details screw up the “truth”...
Go and seek out FDT's own comments after China gate, they are out there and I have seen a link posted here recently. Try a little reading, you'll gain understanding.
Your posting has brought me to a decision: I care more about defeating your candidate than defeating Hillary. It is my intention, should he be nominated, to point out that he supports the ‘Mountain Meadows Massacre’, and that his entire family consists of the descendants of the perpetrators.
But yes the comparisons are drawn, and while I dont support that, Mitt’s presentation is a bit slick and his conversions a tick or two convenient.
That being said you are over playing that spamming bit, indeed many negative Fred articles come from Mitt folk. As far “a very minority”, spare the high an mighty act for the kids...
The same type of heavy breathers on this forum also repeatedly posted ancient mammary photos of Katherine Harris during her senatorial campaign.
I would be grateful to you breathers if you would focus your attention on your blow-up dolls and leave Mrs. Thompson alone.
Leni
LOL! Love the pictures! How true.
The United States is a nation of immigrants
That makes me sick and I am a child of immigrants.
The US existed before immigrants came. We were founded by citizens, with a largely common culture.
Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue.
Sure. They have also brought disunity, discord, dislocation, regional depression, socialism, and communism. Our historical pattern is to counter a generation of relatively lax immigration with one of closed immigration to allow for Americanization.
. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue.
Post-9/11? This was an issue well before then.
Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
And "sanctuary employers?"
Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Does that include cheap labor?
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
1. Good start. How about we work to Americanize them?
2. What do we do with those who don't want to Americanize?
3. Wouldn't reducing numbers do this too?
“I don’t care who you support or oppose.....I just know you’re a misogynist and disgrace to this forum.......and to Republican women of achievement, to boot.”
Uh, if you’re referring to Jeri...you’re kidding, right?
An amazing failure.
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.