Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 09/12/2007 11:26:13 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
When Fred Thompson arrives in Jacksonville, Fla., today, he'd better hit the ground running: His dawdling over the last few months has cost him a couple of miles. National polls are showing a healthy bump for the former Tennessee senator since he entered the race last week. But what's happening on the ground in the Sunshine State — where a January 29 primary may well determine the Republican nominee — illuminates the danger of a strategy based on starting late and hoping that hype and celebrity can substitute for solid organizing.
According to a number of Jacksonville-area Republican donors I've spoken to in recent days, the former Tennessee senator's unimpressive early organization and late entry into the presidential race have led to a group of power players signing up with Mr. Thompson's chief rival for the social-conservative vote: the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. Yesterday, Mr. Romney's campaign announced the support of a former ambassador to Bermuda and major Bush donor, John Rood, as well as the mayor of Jacksonville, John Peyton. It also announced nine new members of its state finance team, all from the city.
Mr. Rood, who attained "Ranger" status in 2004 by raising more than $200,000 for President Bush's re-election campaign, is part of a group of about 20 Jacksonville-area Bush (that's president and governor) donors and political supporters who have grown accustomed to working as a team. However, with both Bush brothers staying on the sidelines in this primary race — and everyone I've talked to insists there's been neither a nod nor a wink from either — the group has failed to coalesce around any one candidate. This may be the first step in that direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Social conservative? Oh really...
So he shakes up the staff before announcing at the historically "on time" time, and every one cries about it. I'm getting tired of the "he's late" drum beat.
Ping-a-ling!
Fred doesn’t need Romney’s money men — he has something on his side that Romney doesn’t: the voters.
Interesting how a number of writers have taken this line, though in general it hasn't occurred to many folks.
I guess the "conservatives" who think Romney is one of them (I know, I know, he was REALLY always against abortion and REALLY always for gun rights, it just took till he decided to run for the White House to get around to it) have decided that this is the line to take against Thompson since they can't attack his conservative credentials. I call it the "I did all my homework on time, teacher!" appeal.
I’m sure Fred is shaking in his Guccis.
***
Fred Thompson leads Rudy Giuliani by six points in a new poll out from Florida by InsiderAdvantage. Fred leads in the poll 27%-21%, with no one else in the GOP field even in double figures. This is huge news for Fred, because Florida will be a huge prize for the winner on January 29, 2008, just one week ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries when over 20 states will vote. Fred heads to Florida tomorrow to begin a campaign swing there.
In a statewide survey of registered Florida voters who said they were likely to vote in next January’s Republican primary, former Sen. Fred Thompson led former Mayor Rudy Giuliani by a six-point margin. The telephone survey of 500 likely voters in the GOP primary - conducted as part of a larger survey for the Florida Chamber of Commerce Sept 6-10 - had a margin of error of 4 percent and was weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation.
The poll was first reported by our sister publication, Southern Political Report.
On the Republican side, the results were:
Thompson: 27%
Giuliani: 21%
McCain: 9%
Romney: 8%
Huckabee: 4%
Brownback: 3%
Paul: 2%
Hunter: 1%
Undecided: 25%
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Getting tired?!?!?!
Been there since, oh, April or so myself. But it’s really all they’ve got. Kinda sad, in baby turtles trying to get to the ocean sort of way....
--snip--
Repairing the damage may be a steep climb for Mr. Thompson. According to numerous people who attend the Jacksonville group's meetings, one of its organizers, Peter Rummell, tried to set up a meeting with members on behalf of Mr. Thompson recently. While all of the other major candidates had come in over the summer, there was no interest in a meeting with Mr. Thompson.
Ouch.
It’s becoming easier by the minute to challenge Thompson on his so-called social conservative positions.
He opposes an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
He doesn’t think that killing an unborn child should be a punishable crime.
And if the border is considered a socially conservative issue, well, he fails to support the border fence. He doesn’t support an approach centering around fining employers who hire illegals and has voted against legislation that would increase fines on businesses that hire illegals when studies showed fines were too low to act as a deterrent. He also voted against creating tamper-proof identifications so that employers can identify legal immigrants who apply for work.
Thompson has his positive traits, but he’s not the bedrock of conservatism. Not even close.
Ping for later.
Oh puhleeze!
Ouch, my patootie!
How many of them are there in this country club group of theirs?
How many votes can they each cast?
Do the math, money is something but money isn’t everything. Voters vote, fundraisers raise funds. When Mitt and his money men figure that out, hopefully, they’ll do the right thing and put his campaign out of it’s misery.
a, you’d better watch this thread closely. I think we’ll have more to add to the list, lol.
While I’m tired of spoon feeding people like you facts, because you obviously can’t or won’t find them for yourself, I would invite you to back up your statements with substantive proof. I would remind you that Fred Thompson believes strongly in the Federalist principle of leaving as much of governance to states and localities as possible. Don’t bother trying to trot out garbage about his not wanting the Federal Government to step in, in every instance possible. “Big Government Conservatism” has gotten the Republicans into the hole they are in now and digging deeper won’t get them out.
Say after me..... Electable and proven conservative. repeat and rinse.
I guess those people didn’t read about Romney having Florida locked up.
I’m not going to say everything you said is false. What I will say is that what you have said does not match what I have seen so far. I’ve seen reports on his voting. I’ve heard him say things that I like very much about the federal problem and other issues.
Thanks for the comments, but I will say I’m not able to buy into about 98% of it. I’m still not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying your comments don’t reflect what I’ve seen at all.
Gay marriage isn't the be-all issue to some conservatives on the federal level. Why isn't this a state's rights issue, like most things are with conservatives?
He doesn’t think that killing an unborn child should be a punishable crime.
Neither do I, because it's an unworkable pipe dream. Did Ronald Reagan make killing the unborn a punishable crime? I don't know off-hand--and it doesn't matter, because it's never going to happen.
And if the border is considered a socially conservative issue, well, he fails to support the border fence. He doesn’t support an approach centering around fining employers who hire illegals and has voted against legislation that would increase fines on businesses that hire illegals when studies showed fines were too low to act as a deterrent. He also voted against creating tamper-proof identifications so that employers can identify legal immigrants who apply for work. Thompson has his positive traits, but he’s not the bedrock of conservatism. Not even close.
Part of our problem is the inducements that we give folks here. You know, I've pointed out that I don't think that we have to have a choice between amnesty on the one hand, and trying to arrest everybody and put them on buses. Practically, that's not going to happen. But you don't have to choose between those if you can have attrition through enforcement, if we enforce the law with regard to employers - and we have an eligibility verification system out there that's voluntary; it should be mandatory - if we made arrests, if we reduced the inducements that especially some of these states give - some of which is against federal law incidentally, and some of that is not being enforced - if we talked a little straighter to Mexico - and the fact that their national policy is dependent upon the exportation of their own citizens - for their own economic benefit, sending money back and so forth - there are plenty of things that we could do, I think, to take care of this problem. If we could do it, but part of it has to do though with the states that are doing these things.
We have a right to open the door and decide when we want to, how long we want it to be open, who goes through the door, and then we have a right to close it. And that's what you're talking about, and the H1B Visas and so forth. There's no question that we need a more intelligent approach in terms of immigration in general. Oviously, we need good, solid potential citizens, folks coming in here as legal residents, and we need highly skilled people. We're competing now in a global economy with some of the most skilled people imaginable coming from some of the places in the world that didn't used to be competitive. Well, they're very competitive now. They're coming over here and studying at our universities and going back home and doing remarkable things. Absolutely, we've got to open that door in responsible ways, but have the right to close it when we want to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836225/posts
I don't know--sounds pretty damn good to me.
The problem so many people get into in these debates is focusing in on these tiny discrepencies of communication or even position, when in fact the person is philosophically in exactly the right place. THAT is what I'm concerned with, and Thompson is speaking my language with illegal immigration.
His actual voting record shows he is far more conservative than you indicate. ANY conservative could be criticized as you have done here--taking individual votes and finding tiny details here and there that add up to something.
Who IS this bedrock of conservatism that you'd support? I'd love to see his perfect record of accomplishment.
Two or three weeks from now if FRed is still at or near the top of the polls this "he's late" hoo-hah will be past its sell-by date.
lol, baby turles
All of this “too late” business seems predicated on party officials and hangers-on feeling uncourted. It’s time to go back to announcing after Labor Day and stop this incredible waste of campaign spending when the general population isn’t paying all that much attention yet. It’s a pretty good indicator of how a candidate is going to treat taxpayer money, imho.
Ouch nothing. The report here is that FRed didn't start campaigning until after he declared. You expected what?
My thoughts exactly. When it comes down to the wire, and the GOP voting base is forced to pick a candidate...they are not going to select someone who used to be a social liberal. All of the T.V. ads and such will not change this. As time goes on (barring Gingrich's entry), Thompson will be the default top tier conservative. This gives him a large advantage.
Mittbot piffle.
I don’t think you’ll have to worry about Newt. IMO, he’s the Ron Paul lite, of the right. He’s brilliant at times, and goes off the reservation just often enough to make you second-guess any support you’d otherwise like to afford him.
BTW, I agree that Thompson may in fact become the default winner over time. That kindof steals his thunder though, wording it that way, because I think Thompson is fairly conservative and will have earned what he wins. I’m fairly sure you’d agree with that after thinking about it.
Thanks for the comments.
Fred rocks. He has been a rock in any vote. Simple stuff. Do your job for your boss, or express who you are. The great thing is he is a good soldier. Even when he didn’t believe in the thing he was a good soldier and took the hill. Some libs are going to try and skewer him for it but that is the funny thing. What they don’t get is doing things you don’t like because you have to is part of life. When he was free to shine he shone.
Fred is the grown up in the race. People don’t want idiot children running the show.
Compared to Ron Paul? yikes.... time to put down your bong and go to bed kid.
>>>It’s becoming easier by the minute to challenge Thompson on his so-called social conservative positions.<<<
-—Mittbot piffle.-—
Once a giant turtle set course for the sun. Looking for adventure. Lookin’ for some fun.
But it seems this ole mindless Mittbot dealt with the issues and didn’t divert attention with name calling.
Well, I guess I’ll never break my love of giant turtles, but that’s pretty excuseable, right?
I don't know about that. Newt Gingrich is a well-educated man who has, for as long as I can remember (which is admittedly not that far back), has been one of the most articulate voices for conservative causes. He is a very cerebral man, who often blows my mind with his academic approach to conservatism. Either way, despite recent news, I doubt he'll enter.
I do agree with you on the second post, however. It wasn't my intention to make Thompson sound any less conservative than he is, because he is (without a shadow of a doubt) more conservative than the rest of the field, and arguably more conservative than our current president. What I was trying to imply is that, as time goes on, all of the flash and bang will become irrelevant and conservative values will become the key litmus for this primary (bye bye Rudy McRomney). That path leads straight to Fred Thompson.
Nah, that’s why I said Ron Paul lite. Look Newt gets goofy at times too. Does he go down the same road to kooksville? No. Still he drives you craze because you’d love to back a guy like him, but then he comes up with some goofy statements that prevent you from doing it.
There have been times when I’ve heard him interviewed and I’ve wound up going, “Yeah!” Then a few months later he’ll address some issue and I’ll wind up going... ug.
I know where you’re coming from, but I put down the bong pipe over two hours ago. ;-)
Seriously, why all the hype for Fred? Unless you’re a law and order fan he’s a virtual unknown.
FRiends of Fred are friends for a reason other than legalizing a silly bong. FRiends of Fred stood up cause we had Fred stand up. Not only did he stand, he did it with honor.
It is a trust issue. I don’t want some asshole who wants to be president. It is a thankless job. Who in their right mind would lust for it.
A candidate that does it begrudgingly because he knows he has to wins. Period. End of sentence.
add a comma after to
I wish I could give you and LesbianThespain... a few specific issues I’ve heard Newt address, that I had disagreed with. I can’t right now.
Don’t get me wrong. I do like Newt. Right now my ‘not quite making it’ meter is fluttering around 75% and I can’t tell you why. This happens to me sometimes. I see a person say something that concerns me a few times, then I make a judgement and after a year or two I wind up not remembering why.
I don’t view Newt with viceral animosity, I just know that I’m not warm on him getting in the race. Wish I could tell you more.
Thanks.
D1
What “facts” of these do you suppose I’m missing?
>>>We haven’t enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we’ve not enforced the law, and that’s a part of the problem. You can’t enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That’s not a solution to the problem.”<<<
This dull thud brought to you by Fred Thompson, the same man who voted AGAINST creating tamper-proof identification for legal immigrants so that employers COULD verify the legality of their employees.
>>>FOX’s ALAN COLMES: “You don’t put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?” THOMPSON: “If it would work. I mean, I don’t know – that’s a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done.<<<
Fence=technical. I suppose he supports something a bit less technical, like a “virtual” fence.
And Fred Thompson can believe in a federalist approach all he wants. It’s the wrong one for the border. It’s the wrong one for tort reform. It’s the wrong one for marriage.
Look, either we stand united against the gay agenda, or we fall one by one. How can a nation sacrifice such an underpinning of civilization as marriage?
There’s not a society on this planet’s hisotry that has accepted gay marriage save a few socialist European states so fundamentally broken that they cannot do something so basic as produce at levels high enough to sustain their own population. For millenia, marriage has been one:
1) A bond of love and companionship shared between a man and woman
2) and the channel through which children were conceived and raised.
The gay activists have been trying to destroy #2, and the erosion of #2 is the reason they’ve been successful. It’s time this nonsense was stopped. Marriage is the underpinning of a society. It is a shared value that sustains a population. Playing some federalist game with it is just foolishness. It cheapens what this nation stands for, and it cheapens marriage. Utah would have been denied statehood, I note, had they demanded polygamy.
On top of that, all it takes is one federal court ruling to destroy decades worth of federalism. And frankly, gays are chipping away at the 14th Amendment until they squirm their way in.
It’s time our nation codified its foundation. The worms have bored in enough.
I’ve said on numerous occasions that there isn’t a candidate in this race who is perfect.
And it’s good to see that Thompson has shifted his position and is leaning more towards attrition via enforcement. As you can see in some of the quotations I’ve posted, he has been opposed to employer-based enforcement. And he has voted against employee identification via the employer and just recently said he didn’t think this was vialbe. So now how he’s backing employer-based reporting.
Okay. Now how is he going to get that accomplished? Romney has been quite clear about how he’d do it.
Call me skeptical, but I somehow doubt our dogmatic federalist Fred Thompson is going to buy into a national ID card, even for legal immigrants. And that’s what it’s going to take. Random raids on pig farms (despite the fact how that set one presidential candidate squealing) aren’t going to cut it. Perhaps Fred will surprise me.
And I’m glad to see Thompson addressing foreign visas. Romney was on this when he first began running, and it’s good to see that two of those on top see it for what it is. Our system is horribly backwards. European nations are light years ahead of us, and we’re losing many, many skilled individuals because of our backwards policies. I have friends who tried to come to this country from Eastern Europe. Engineers, financiers, scientists, IT specialists. Good, solid people who spoke English pretty much fluently. They couldn’t get in.
And really, this is a huge reason I support Romney. He’s been able to identify the areas where our nation’s economy is most vulnerable and address them. I haven’t see another candidate address our engineering shortage. Indeed, Germany produces 33% more than we do with 1/5 the population. Our nation is faltering in areas where we can’t afford it. Our rates of corporate taxation are among the 3 highest in the world, for instance.
>>>Did Ronald Reagan make killing the unborn a punishable crime? I don’t know off-hand—and it doesn’t matter, because it’s never going to happen. <<<
If unborn newborns are protected under the 14th-amendment, you bet it will happen. It’s the only way it could be.
>>>I don’t want some asshole who wants to be president. It is a thankless job. Who in their right mind would lust for it.<<<<
Someone who wishes to change his nation for the better and has a vision of how to get it accomplished, perhaps?
There are lots of tough jobs out there. Not everyone is cut out for them.
But it seems this ole mindless Mittbot dealt with the issues and didn’t divert attention with name calling.
Well, I guess I’ll never break my love of giant turtles, but that’s pretty excuseable, right?
I have no idea what to make of all this but I got a laugh out of it, that's for sure.
NAFTA --> Securityand Prosperity Partnership of North America (2005) --> North American Union (2010)
mmmm, no thanks.
>>>At least one of your assertions is completely wrong ( the border fence as he does support it) <<<<
OH????
FOX’s ALAN COLMES: “You don’t put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?” THOMPSON: “If it would work. I mean, I don’t know – that’s a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done.
“We haven’t enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we’ve not enforced the law, and that’s a part of the problem. You can’t enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That’s not a solution to the problem.”
—Thompson, who voted against creating an identification system so employers could identify the legality of their employers.
Aside from Rootie and McCain, Fred is better known than all other declared Republicans including Willard. McCain has beaten himself and Fred is going to beat Rootie.
Let me add these words: Since High School
What kind of doofus that has any grasp of reality would go from being 18 to 50+ with this fire to be POTUS. That bothers me. I like my people a little hesitant. It is a damn hard job and changes from day to day. Do we really want someone that in high school decided I am going to be the BOSS!!!???
I would run away in fear from someone like that. They are a fool.
The beauty of it is that we do have a choice. That choice will reflect the current battle for the heart of the Republican party. Do we become "Democrat Light" or do we embrace the roots that have preserved this nation since Lincoln lead us through the disaster of the civil war?
It is a true Democratic process. We have choice.
This isn't something the "Democrat Party" can relate too.
The Democrats have thrust several farcical candidates upon their ilk of varying degrees of incompetence. The choices most likely carefully considered not to threatened their "chosen one", Hillary Clinton. Well financed with Chinese Communist cash, she and the other "players" of this staged drama will coast their way through the primary process. No real surprises, and in the end, no real choice.
True freedom is being represented within the Republican primary process. Totalitarian oppression is only just beginning within the Democrat party.
Thompson Leads Giuliani In New Insider Survey For Florida Chamber
Poll Is First To Exclude Gingrich From Choices
(9/12/07) In a statewide survey of registered Florida voters who said they were likely to vote in next January’s Republican primary, former Sen. Fred Thompson led former Mayor Rudy Giuliani by a six-point margin. The telephone survey of 500 likely voters in the GOP primary - conducted as part of a larger survey for the Florida Chamber of Commerce Sept 6-10 - had a margin of error of 4 percent and was weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation.
The poll was first reported by our sister publication, Southern Political Report.
On the Republican side, the results were:
Thompson: 27%
Giuliani: 21%
McCain: 9%
Romney: 8%
Huckabee: 4%
Brownback: 3%
Paul: 2%
Hunter: 1%
Undecided: 25%
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.