Posted on 07/12/2007 1:11:42 PM PDT by hardback
Since that was a response to someone who criticized Fred’s “poor” Senate showing, I don’t see why I should delete anything.
Poor Duncan.
It was more of a comment than a request. Titles mean little to me. It’s what people do with them that counts. That’s the kind of information I’m looking for. It just bothers me that no one wants to discuss issues.
It’s sort of robotic, got to wonder if he has ever farted, LOL.
I’ll be good now, I promise!
We’ve been discussing issues and records for months, yet you are saying you know little about Fred, and want it handed to you on a platter.
Hunter doesn’t have ANY resume in government aside from what “they all do” as representatives.
LOL! God bless you. That’s a good one on me! Forgive me for thinking you may have been a student! One of my daughters is a teacher, 56 yesterday! And I am still a student! Not actively attending an actual school, but still learning something new every day.
You need to read what Fred has written. I have and everytime I am extremely impressed with the sense he makes and how much I agree with him. And not only is the meaning of his words impressive, but they’re so well put on paper and when spoken the delivery is compelling. This is what I want in a President.
Besides which, I don’t see him kissing Ted Kennedy’s butt.
On the other hand, Obama speaks in platitudes. I think the only reason he is anywhere is that many democrats hate Hillary as much as we do.
The ratings of National Right to life are important to me, they interviewed him thoroughly. His prolife voting record.
His hard work, his work ethic.
He grew up in the Church of Christ, he and Sarah raised their children in that faith, he and Jeri were married in a Church of Christ. I know a lot of that faith and that means something to me.
His history of fighting corruption.
Watergate
Marie Ragghianti and Gov. Roy Blanton
Cpl. Lance Fielder when he was in the Senate.
His work on the Chinese-Clinton scandals. [Even though Glenn stymied a lot, there was some information uncovered that led to some prosecutions.]
His work as a prosecutor.
I read the book Marie by Peter Maas and got a good picture of him from that book. Marie knew his secretary, the secretary quit because he was such a hard worker. He worked the secretary so much for his clients that she found another job. Marie said he was hard working. She brought him a couple of feet high stacks of records and papers and he spent long hours going through them, mastering the contents and what they meant for her case. He did it himself instead of assigning it to a staff person.
The Watergate thing. He came out with the respect of Sam Dash [Watergate majority counsel]. A lot of people say a lot of things, but these were Republicans dealing with a Republican president. That was a highly partisan time, bitterly partisan, but they were looking for the truth in a respectful way. You couldn’t find a single Democrat like that during the Clinton administration.
His background with his parents and the way he grew up.
His hard work when he was working his way through college. He worked many jobs then, got good grades in college even with a wife and three children and working all those jobs. That was a turnaround and life changing experience from his high school years.
He is a devoted father. As in his reaction when Betsey died. The way he is when his children are around and the way he speaks of them.
His federalism views, and how carefully he considers things when he applies principles to issues that come up.
His limited government view, has never seen a tax increase that he liked. I read a column he wrote about limited government and civil service, I like what he said.
I like what he said about closing the borders, and the sovereignty of our country. All immigration should be legal.
What he did for Cpl. Lance Fielder and his family, which was a corruption investigation while he was in the Senate.
His integrity, especially when all this stuff came up about the lobbying for an abortion group[a lot of that was really squirrelly and lacked proof]. His response showed his integrity. Explaining what a lawyer does and how he can’t go around talking about clients and what he did for them. It would be easy to start spouting off about it, but he held to the ethical way in not talking about it. The only reason I know so much about Marie Ragghianti is that SHE talked about it, did the book and the movie. Cpl. Lance Fielder’s family talked about their case but Fred didn’t.
He is up to speed on national security issues and is working with a committee that advises Condi Rice, most especially about nuclear proliferation.
His work helping John Roberts through the confirmation process.
He seems very devoted to Jeri, the look on his face when he is with her shows much love.
His position on the second amendment.
His understanding of the Constitution shown in the writings about it.
He believes in disclosure, gave his Senate papers to a university in Tennessee and what he did is available. Far different from Hillary.
A column he wrote about taxes, and how lower taxes benefit families with children and are beneficial to children.
The column he wrote when the British sailors were captives of Iran, and what he said about NATO and the UN.
One of the things he said about immigration and the Mexican government. He would talk with the leadership there about our sovereignty and about their policies that drive people away, and what Mexico does to keep people out on their Southern border.
His oldest son Tony said, “If he makes a decision to do the job, he will give 110%” Tony knows him well and should be an authority on that.
I hope I’m not boring you.
Well, we are tired of the repeated duplicate attack posts.
We’re tired of the loaded questions, and the disingenuous posts.
I, for one, am more than happy to answer questions for people who really want to know, but I won’t bother with people who are obviously being dishonest.
I know. I see the same on the Duncan threads. Sad, when we all just want what’s best for our country. They both can’t be president at the same time and I’m hoping when DH gets the nomination yall will be behind him. Just in cast though I want to know more about yalls guy:’)
Not at all. Thanks
My cousin is a Duncan Hunter supporter, and a close friend is a rabid Ron Paul supporter.
Ron Paul says a lot about the Constitution, but he is more libertarian than Republican in ways that aren’t good to me.
I really like Duncan Hunter and hope he does well. I’d like to build him up. So many Duncan Hunter supporters come on Fred threads and trash him, as politicalmom said it really gets old. Duncan and Fred don’t go around trashing each other, I’ve heard both asked the question in interviews about other candidates and they both show a lot of integrity. I’d like to see Duncan Hunter be successful.
I wish Duncan Hunter supporters had as much class and integrity as Duncan does. It is hard to be friendly with them and it doesn’t help anyone when things are this ugly. I am absolutely positive that Duncan would not approve of some things his supporters are doing on FR, but he does not have control over the freepers who support him.
My biggest wish, is that we could support both men, build both up. Let the voters decide who wins in the primaries and whoever wins the nomination we can all support him. I’m going to have a lot of trouble forgetting what some of Duncan’s supporters have said on the Fred threads.
I’ve come to a conclusion: if a Freeper’s tagline contains an endorsement for a particular presidential contender then I can’t take any of their criticism of another candidate too seriously. Doesn’t mean they are wrong...just compromised.
I run across this claim here every once and a while, and it surprises me. I've spent hours on THOMAS.gov examining Thompson's record -- the bills and amendments he's introduced, his votes, his remarks on the Senate floor. I can tell you that he was extremely impressive on the issues that are most important to me: the Constitution, national security, limiting government intrusion and exhibiting leadership rather than simply going along with the congresscritter herd. He was tireless in his fight to rein in the unelected bureaucracy, return proper Constitutional powers to the states, cut government spending, waste and fraud, and enhance our national security. No, he doesn't have a lot of new laws, government programs and budgets with his name on them -- because he was working to limit government, not expand it. If we keep judging candidates on the new things they get government to do for us (rather than the things they stop government from doing TO us), then it's little wonder we never see government get smaller.
The beauty of having a candidate's full record documented and available on the internet for all to explore is that we don't have to wait for the candidate to tell us what he or she will do. We can look at the record and judge for ourselves. Thompson was consistent enough in the Senate with his priorities that after looking at his votes and speeches, you can get a very good idea of what his priorities will be as president. If you have the time, I urge you to check it out for yourself.
Have I mentioned that you are awesome recently? :)
I’m in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that I’ve heard a lot of positive comments around here about Thompson (although the majority of the people around here are not yet paying attention to the election yet).
It’s not that people don’t want to discuss Thompson’s record — it’s just that we’ve had so many naysayers in here pretending to ask sincere questions...then when Thompson supporters take lots of time to answer, they’re just beset with potshots. But since you’re sincere, here (in short) is why I support Thompson:
-Willingness to put the country ahead of self-interest: e.g., introduced a Constitutional term limits amendment for congress, fought passionately for a balanced budget amendment even though that would mean it would be harder for congresscritters to buy their way back into office with pork; successfully introduced bills in successive years to prevent congress from getting their annual pay raises; as a member of the federal government, constantly fought to limit federal government power
-Willingness to lead instead of follow in congress when the Constitution or national security were at stake: was the single dissenting vote against a number of “feel-good” bills (such as the .08 national DUI limit) that Thompson believes were not the proper Constitutional purvue of the federal government. Constantly cited the Founders on the Senate floor when arguing that x, y or z proposal improperly violated various Constitutional principles.
-National security focus — extremely versed in foreign policy and the global threats that face us — was pushing Congress to do something about weapons of mass destruction, the dangers of proliferation and delivery systems, and the threat posed by China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq ‘way back in the 90s.
-Ability to prioritize, identify the root of a problem and devise a long-term, structural solution — a good example was his work to force the unelected bureaucracy to be accountable, and to calculate the cost/benefit of their regulations, and to stop making de facto laws since lawmaking is the exclusive Constitutional province of the legislature. This isn’t a sexy, headline-grabbing area, but it’s massively important. Another example were his federalism acts, which aimed to force Congress and the unelected bureaucracy from imposing one-size-fits-all solutions on the states.
Does that help, and are there any specific issues questions you’d like to ask?
Grin! Not compared to you, mom!
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.