This interview?? What 'point' didn't he get to?
Posted on 01/02/2008 7:10:14 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
Other than the standard; No fire in the belly, he got in too late, and the evil membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, what are his negatives?
For the record, I am a Fred Thompson supporter.
Thanks.
I will address one point.
He did vote for conviction on one charge.
He did vote in the negative on the other.
He explained his actions for doing so.
He made good arguements for both votes.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Well he should have voted to convict on both charges. The charge he voted down was the perjury charge. I have been trying to explain to liberals for years why perjury is indeed an impeachable offense and Clinton should have been removed for it. Good ‘ol boy Fred’s betrayal on this was a slap in the face.
Huck got the support by being a wedge candidate and strutting his "evangelical" badge. And somehow the evangelical community bought the act......for a short time......
That's long gone now, and he's sinking like a stone as he should. Stupid hypocrite is all he is.
i heard part of his interview with laura
this afternoon in my car and
he did not get to the point.
listen to rush limbaugh or bill o’reilly
and compare them to fred, and you’ll see what i mean.
they are professional speakers.
If Fred had Huck’s position on the issues Fred would be where Huck is now, instead of hoping for second or third place.
I think that was his motivation for not consenting to the hand raise in the recent debate. He has a position, and sometimes you need to explain that position. It might take more than 30 seconds.
But, I agree, he should tighten it up a bit.
I am not familiar enough with the impeachment case to know whether Fred's decision on the second charge was correct. It certainly appears to have been reasonable, however. Further, even if I knew enough to disagree with it, I would still probably have for respect for Fred, trying to actually look at the case before him, than for a Republican who voted 'REMOVE' without such evaluation.
We don't want no yuppie president!
That is where I stand on his vote.
He made a judicial decision, not a partisan decision.
I have to head to bed.
I look forward to more responses.
Like being a moron when it comes to defense and foreign policy. I am just so thrilled.
Or being taxed to stimulate the economy? How Clintonian.
How about giving more to the kids of illegals than our own. All taxpayer related.
And you support this fraud cause he talks evangelical talk?
] Shame on you.
As for Fred's foreign policy credentials? Fred lobbied on behalf of Libyan terrorists and Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Super.
Oh give it up, the man is making it up on the fly. One day he sounds like Nancy Pelosi, Rush Limbaugh calls him on it and he changes his mind.
Sometime I think as evangelicals they just stamp sucker on our foreheads.
The man is a total fraud. Elmer Gantry in the flesh, and you are willing to defend him and say the stupidest, most vile things about his opponents.
I have a bridge you might be interested in........
1. McCain-Feingold. He was considering co-sponsorship, and supported its passage, although he later disavowed parts of it. But he FAILED to recognize the damage to free speech that it represented - not trivial for a Constitutionalist.
2. Failure to support a Human Life Amendment. I do appreciate that overturning Roe v. Wade is a necessary first step, but his insistence that life should be a state issue is misguided. Also, I was very disappointed with his failure to inform himself about the Terry Schiavo case. This was an extraordinary episode in America, triggered by failure of the judicial branch to protect the rights of the severely disabled. The right to life (for the innocent) is either a gift from G_d or a privilege granted by the state - and I once thought that issue was settled.
3. I did disagree with him on Clinton’s perjury, but the real failure there was the impeachment process. As a lawyer, he voted based on the (limited) evidence presented by Starr.
Duncan Hunter is the candidate closest to my views. He has demonstrated his commitment to the Country by his military service, (as has McCain, of course) and has shown firmness of principle, as well as a number of legislative accomplishments that I find compelling. I will support him in the Tennessee primary (if he is still a candidate) but happily support Thompson after Feb. 5 - IF he survives that long (and I believe that he will.)
I think Fredheads are naive to believe Fred's transformation into a "100% true conservative" when he has the record of a Howard Baker-mentored moderate member of the centrist coalition along with the likes of Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel and George Voinovich.
Hey. I pinged you to another thread. Please read the article, and comment.
He loves china and believes that we should be financing projects abroad that help people, as well as his love for John McCain, not to mention that he likes to ask for applause when none is given but his script expects it. But his real negative is that he flip flops.
This interview?? What 'point' didn't he get to?
Here is the Statement by Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee)
It's rather long, so set a side some time if you want to read it.
"We did not send enough troops to Iraq initially. We still do not have enough troops in Afghanistan and are losing hard-won gains there as foreign fighters pour in and the number of Iraq-style suicide attacks increases. Our current active armed forces simply are not large enough.""Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."
"If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms."
"Seeing Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar, Diyala, and parts of Baghdad reject al Qaeda and join our forces, often at tremendous risk to themselves, has been a truly extraordinary shift. Those who once embraced al Qaeda members as liberators now see them for what these radicals are: brutal oppressors who want to take Iraq back to the seventh century. And this development is serving as a model for turning Shiite tribes against their militants. Despite what the gloomy Democrats in the United States profess, reconciliation is happening in Iraq, only it is bottom up rather than top down, and since it comes directly from the people, it can end the violence faster. Benchmarks are being reached in fact, if not in law."
"Withdrawing from Iraq before the country is stable and secure would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis." - Mike Huckabee
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.