Politicalmom was the originator of ‘Fear the Fred’. It is a rally phrase and not a snide comment.
And you mentioned only one thing about Fred Thompson that you say has a valid criticism.
No it is not a valid criticism to say he was an avid supporter of CFR. He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Here are his own comments in the press:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901007/posts?page=178
And his legislation is having the effect of having Hillary Clinton’s fundraising behavior examined in court with a highly possible FEC investigation to follow. That is a good thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902749/posts
As I said I have seen all the criticisms of Fred Thompson and none of them are valid. The criticisms are frivolous and are expressed by people with an agenda.
The only thing that can be criticized about Fred Thompson’s legislation is that the government implemented it poorly and other members of the Senate voted on amendments that restricted advertising which the Supreme Court has since struck down. Fred Thompson was not responsible for any of that.
What else you got?
I think you have nothing.
Oh, come on. He was a major sponsor of the bill, one of the original three, along with McCain and Feingold. He helped shepherd the bill through the Senate.
He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Bulloney. Any infringement of free speech can be validly criticized, and bribery has always been illegal. CFR did nothing new to curtail that, but did limit the speech of free citizens in support of political viewpoints. Here is a particularly strong criticism of McCain-Feingold by JimRob.
Here is a detailed timeline of Thompson's involvement in CFR, by a member of Romney's camp. If he "was against the restrictions on advertising", then why did he include it in the original legislation and file a brief in support of the restrictions in the SCOTUS case four years ago? This is a valid criticism, but instead of addressing it, the Fred supporters on that thread just attacked the messenger.