Fredipedia: The definitive Fred Thompson Resource
WARNING: If you wish to join this list, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 08/16/2007 12:25:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
FredHeads:
As you may know, the Texas Straw Poll will be held in Fort Worth on Saturday, September 1.
Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain WILL NOT be actively participating. It's also expected that our man Fred will not be actively participating.
Given these facts, this poll is WIDE OPEN, folks. It's anybody's ball game.
I've been told that FRED WILL BE ON THE BALLOT, and I'm working on getting official confirmation on that.
If Fred's on the ballot, we have a golden opportunity to generate a very nice showing for our man right here in Texas.
The state party is claiming that 15,000 delegates will be voting in the poll. If that's correct, the Texas Straw Poll will be bigger than the Iowa Straw Poll that took place last weekend. A win in this poll would be BIG NEWS.
There's every reason to believe that Fred can generate a strong showing even if he's not there.
In order to be a Delegate to the Straw Poll, you must have been a Delegate or Alternate Delegate to at least one of the last 4 Republican State Conventions (2000, 2002, 2004 or 2006) or one of the last 2 Republican National Conventions (2000 or 2004).
If you're eligible to vote in this poll, I strongly urge you to attend and to show your support for Fred in a very tangible way.
Whether or not you're eligible to vote in the poll, if you're willing to help with organizing other folks to get them there, or you're willing to volunteer at the event, please contact me. We're going to need some help.
Thank you, - Ken Emanuelson Texas State Coordinator FredHeads USA http://FredHeadsUSA.org http://TexasFredHeads.org
Should be a good opportunity for Hunter and others.
Fredipedia: The definitive Fred Thompson Resource
WARNING: If you wish to join this list, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
I don’t qualify to participate, but I will be praying for Fred to make an EXCELLENT showing! :-)
Run, Fred, RUN!!! :-)
I see: “or one of the last 2 Republican National Conventions (2000 or 2004).”
Can you be in this category, but from outside Tx?
No.
I will be in Fort Worth, but will Fred NO, he thinks he is better than us. I will be voting Ron Paul and this should be a wake up call for Romney ( where is his Texas support ?)
IBTZ?!
Been at FR a whole week or so?
Hmmm. Enquiring minds want to know...
You have fun wasting your vote on Dr. Paul! :-)
I’m saving mine for Fred. He doesn’t have
“Premature Campaignitis”! LOL.
Hey, here’s one of those things. Ya’ll come down for it and maybe get on a video again.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008
www.ronpaul2008.com
“premature campaignitis: During political intercourse, more rapid achievement of campaigning and promise-making in the candidate than his or her potential voter wishes.”
Fred’s taking things...nice...and...slooooowww.
It’s better that way. ;-)
NICE AND SLOW - FRED WITHDRAWS FREOM THE RACE - HE VOTED NOT TO IMPEACH KLINTON, CAN YOU IMAGINE??? WHERE IS HE??
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article1.html
Republicans voting not guilty:
* Chafee, John (R-RI)
* Collins, Susan (R-ME)
* Gorton, Slade (R-WA)
* Jeffords, Jim (R-VT)
* Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
* Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
* Specter, Arlen (R-PA) [Voted “Not Proved”]
* Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
* Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
* Warner, John (R-VA)
Democrats voting guilty:
* none
“Falling for Fred (hit piece)
Slate ^ | 20 April 2007 | John Dickerson
To: radar101
If you read the comments following that Slate hit piece, you’ll see the following:
Subject: Falling for Fred
From: Sturm Ruger
Date: Apr 21 2007 7:37AM
Isn’t it more than just a little bit disingenuous to make Fred Thompson’s vote against impeaching bill Clinton for perjury a major point without even mentioning that Thompson voted to impeach for obstruction of justice?
This is just the sort of tactic being used by Rudy McRomney supporters in their desperation to head off a Thompson run for the GOP nomination. To see John Dickerson employ it so shamelessly leads me to question what horse he’s backing in this race.
Perjury is the harder to prove of the two charges. From then Senator Thompson’s statement explaining why he did not vote to convict on the perjury article:
“Never has the Senate convicted on an article worded such as this. Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury. At the outset, it is clear that a count such as this in an indictment would not survive court challenge...”
“Make no mistake, perjury is a felony, and its commission by a President may sometimes constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. But is removal appropriate when the President lied about whether he was refreshing his recollection or coaching a witness about the nature of a sexual relationship? Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as `occasional’? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office.”
“In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers’ view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses, or that only acts that will jeopardize the future of the nation warrant removal of the President. It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.”
Obstruction of justice is the more serious of the two articles. Again, from then Senator Thompson’s sstatement explaining why he voted to convict on the obstruction article:
“Each and every allegation of obstruction of justice and witness tampering has thus been proven...”
“Time and again, and with premeditation, he was willing to use government personnel to assist in his coverup and his lies, acknowledging part of the truth only when confronted with physical evidence. And he carried his lies and cover up right on into legal proceedings with the grace and ease of someone who regarded a court of law as deserving of no more respect than if he were dealing with a stranger on the street. It is this persistent relentless, remorseless pattern of conduct that requires a verdict of guilty. He was willing to lie, defame, hide evidence and enlist anyone necessary, including government employees over and over again. At every juncture when he had the opportunity to stop, relent or come clean with a forgiving public, he chose instead to go forward. And even today he refuses to acknowledge the damage he has done to the Presidency and the Judiciary, choosing instead to rely upon his high job approval rating and acknowledging only what he is forced to after the production of physical evidence.”
“At a time when all of our institutions are under assault, when the Presidency has been diminished and the Congress is viewed with scepticism, our Judiciary and our court system have remarkably maintained the public’s confidence. Now the President’s actions are known to every school child in America. And in the midst of these partisan battles, many people still think this matter is just `lying about sex.’ But little by little, there will be a growing appreciation that it is about much more than that. And in years to come, in every court house in every town in America, juries, judges, and litigants will have the President’s actions as a bench mark against which to measure any attempted subversion of the judicial process. The notion that anyone, no matter how powerless, can get equal justice will be seen by some as a farce. And our rule of law — the principle that many other countries still dream about — the principle that sets us apart, will have been severely damaged. If this does not constitute damage to our government and our society, I cannot imagine what does. And for that he should be convicted.”
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
7 posted on 04/21/2007 6:29:48 AM PDT by Sturm Ruger (Draft Fred Thompson: the grassroots “surge that will transform the Republican race.” - The Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
FRED THOMPSON VOTED TO NOT IMPEACH KLINTON FOR LYING UNDER OATH ; KLINTON LIED AND THOMPSON PROTECTED HIM. THOMPSON WILL MELT LIKE ICE IN JULY WHENEVER HE ANNOUNCES. WE HAVE DONE OUR RESEARCH.
May I ask why you are “SHOUTING” at me? I like FRed, you don’t. Agree to disagree. We’ll see how Fred does when he officially announces in a few weeks. :-)
Fred Thompson needs to come to the Texas Straw Poll to win it. I can’t imagine why he’s not.
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.