Click the Biker
"Which way to Rolling Thunder?"
He's looking for monthly donors
Sign up, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Or give what you can
Posted on 07/11/2011 11:40:58 AM PDT by Baladas
Fred Thompson, the former U.S. senator, Republican presidential candidate and actor (Law and Order, etc.), will be in Richmond next week to support an effort to ensure the presidency goes to the winner of the most overall popular votes in all 50 states.
Thompson, along with former Illinois governor Jim Edgar (R) and former Iowa governor Chet Culver (D) are part of a bipartisan coalition that has endorsed the National Popular Vote that would go into effect if states representing 270 electoral votes pass legislation.
The National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in seven states — Maryland, Hawaii, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont and the District of Columbia -- representing 29 percent of the necessary votes for the compact to go into effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Fred needs to go back to promoting something more worth while, like REVERSE MORTGAGE scams.
Secession, an unfortunate option, keeps looking better and better and better and better.
Knox Pooley.
We were founded as a republic and represented by our elected official through the electoral college.
Through the years the idea of an elected representative that actually represents his constituents has somehow disappeared. The party, not the man, has managed to become the ogre that beats all new politicians into submission to the unwritten (and secret) rules of the “Rino and Lifers” club and the people no longer have any say in the management of their legislatures on both the state and federal level.
In essence, we no longer have representation while the “tit” of government is dangled in front of naive voters.
Now we should all be able to clearly see why we should not hold our nose and vote for the lessor of two evils. RINO’s are dangerous and we better figure out that they have the same goal as the Globalist traitors that dominate the democratic party as well as most of the republican leadership.
This is a direct attempt to change our Constitutional government from a Republic to a democracy. In effect it would amend the Constitution, without amending it.
D@mn the traitors within.
Fred is plenty smart, you didn’t have a clue he was a Progressive did you?
Drop dead, Fred.
Regards,
TS
Can you say bullsh? Last time I heard, it takes 37 states to amend the constitution, and that's what it would take. WAPO needs to read the Constitution....living or legacy, either one!
No need to apologize for that. We've all supported candidates that we've come to regret later on. I voted for Patrick Hughes for U.S. Senate in the 2010 primary against Mark Kirk. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher now.
However, I do think an apology is in order for the freepers who sneered at everyone who questioned Fred's less-than-conservative record and whenever we brought it up, they responded with "You don't GET it. Fred only voted for so-and-so liberal thing cuz Fred a TRUE federalist. Fred revers federalism and he's the only real federalist in this race. OBVIOUSLY you don't understand federalism if you don't support Fred!"
I’ll admit it - I was snookered.
Never trust an insider!
I wouldn’t go that far.
His support was so low anyway, it wouldn’t have mattered if all his supporters were for Hunter instead.
But anyhow, there are clearly as many reasons to give him the ubiquitous “RINO” tag as the average Republican Senator who is alternately tolerated and reviled by freeperdom. He’s hardly the paragon some made him out to be. Still would have much preferred him to McLame or Romney though.
I can’t believe he’s wasting his energy on this silly and doomed attempt to run an end around of the Electoral College. How about Tax reform Fred? Foreign policy? Jim Edgar isn’t a good guy to hang around. (And sadly Edgar was our best Governor in decades)
I cannot believe Fred is taken in by this BS....and I supported him.
Popular vote equals less power for the smaller states and more democrats elected.
It is 100% the WRONG thing to do for people that care about our country.
Note the 7 states that have passed this horrible idea are all liberal, Democrat states that would gain from more voter fraud.
True, I don't buy the argument that he was in the race to sabotage conservatives so McCain would get the nod. That may have been the unintentional result in South Carolina, but overall he wasn't much of a factor. Still I think his brief stroll-for-the-Presidency is Exhibit A why it's a bad idea to "draft" people for office that won't their heart and soul into the effort. And it's Exhibit B while waiting around to the 11th hour to announce a major campaign is NOT a "brilliant strategy" (are you listening, Palin fans?) ;-)
>> But anyhow, there are clearly as many reasons to give him the ubiquitous “RINO” tag as the average Republican Senator who is alternately tolerated and reviled by freeperdom. He’s hardly the paragon some made him out to be. Still would have much preferred him to McLame or Romney though. <<
You're probably right, looking back he was still better than Rudy McRomney (only because the latter 3 were so bad), but at the time I was looking at the cards we were dealt and I wasn't about to throw my support behind someone who was endlessly "thinking about" running when everyone else was setting up tents in Iowa.
As I've said, there's NO reason for the freepers who were duped by Fred to apologize for voting for him. Alot of us throw our support behind a candidate we later regret, as I noted my most recent example is Pat Hughes in 2010.
What does irk me is the freepers who put Fred on some kind of pedestal as the second coming of Reagan and excused any terrible parts of his record as simply because of Fred's revered "federalist principles" ("why of course Fred hates abortion but he didn't campaign for the human life amendment cuz he's a TRUE FEDERALIST and the ONLY candidate who RESPECTS the intent of our founders... obviously you don't understand the principles of federalism) Most Fred supporters are far more rational and level-headed than Ron Paulites, it was disturbing to hear them talk like Paulies with the "ONLY Fred gets it" stuff and talk down to the rest of us as being clueless. I really don't appreciate being talked down to, either, whenever someone says I don't "understand" the constitution because I don't support their POV. Reminds me of my liberal college professes at Columbia who would sneer that anyone who doesn't agree with their anti-war agenda must be stupid and not understand current events and foriegn policy.
>> I can’t believe he’s wasting his energy on this silly and doomed attempt to run an end around of the Electoral College. How about Tax reform Fred? Foreign policy? Jim Edgar isn’t a good guy to hang around. (And sadly Edgar was our best Governor in decades) <<
While I think the electoral college system could be tweaked and reformed (my preferred method, of course, would be allocating electoral votes by congressional district instead of "winner take all" in a state), I agree it's hardly a top priority. I disagree with the freepers who have the "everything the founder fathers did is perfect" mindset, but with the EC its simply a case that although it's flawed, it's preferable to the main alternatives discussed at the time, either having Congress pick the President or have a nationwide popular vote as Fred wants.
It would at least be entertaining to debate him on this issue, situations like 1960 or 2000 would be a logistical nightmare if you were going to attempt an accurate nationwide recount in a country with 300 million people, given that the margin of victory was 500,000 votes or less. And I would love to see one of Fred's ex-supporters confront him about how going around the constitution with a national vote compact gels with his supposed reverence for "federalism". What irks me more than switching to a national popular vote is the method they're trying to use to impose it. If they passed a constitutional amendment to achieve that, I wouldn't be happy but I'd accept it. But there's something downright creepy about 12 of the biggest states getting together and deciding how the other 38 states will be able to allocate their votes in a presidential election.
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.