This is part of a series of articles about the lives and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations.
This article doesn't really constitute a hit piece (so don't go getting in a snit Clara Lou) ;-)
Posted on 09/29/2007 2:16:52 PM PDT by Plutarch
From a political standpoint, it should have been an easy decision. The calls flooding Fred D. Thompson’s Senate office in the winter of 1999 showed that his Tennessee constituents overwhelmingly favored removing President Bill Clinton from office. But as the historic impeachment trial neared, records show, Mr. Thompson agonized over what he saw as two “bad choices...”
But his approach to the impeachment case — and his ultimate decision to part with the Republican majority by voting to acquit Mr. Clinton on one of two impeachment counts — underscores the concerns now being raised by many conservative leaders.
Less than a month into Mr. Thompson’s official campaign, they are asking how truly committed he is to their cause and, given his late-starting and somewhat languid campaign, how much he really covets the prize. James C. Dobson, the influential Christian conservative leader, recently offered this verdict in an e-mail message to supporters: “He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent ‘want to...’”
To judge from the ratings of interest groups, Mr. Thompson was a loyal Republican. He received a 100 percent score from anti-abortion groups, ardently championed the causes of the National Rifle Association, sided with the American Conservative Union 86 percent of the time and backed President Bush on the war with Iraq, tax cuts and most everything else. But such numbers do not necessarily measure a politician’s priorities.
In confidential surveys sent out by the Senate Republican leadership, Mr. Thompson recommended giving priority to issues like Congressional term limits and overhauling welfare, entitlement programs and the tax code. But he passed over divisive social issues like late-term abortion, cloning, physician-assisted suicide and affirmative action.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is part of a series of articles about the lives and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations.
This article doesn't really constitute a hit piece (so don't go getting in a snit Clara Lou) ;-)
He was definitely on the right side of that one. He helped keep Al Gore out of the White House -- and Bush from having to run against him as the incumbent president.
It is my opinion that had that happened Gore would be president today.
You might have pinged me. It’s the proper thing to do, you know.
Leave it to you to suggest a “snit” because I disagree with you. Typical.
If you are going to editorialize an article, you should include snippets or break lines to indicate you've taken the original published content of the piece and posted sections of it out of context. Otherwise, folks will see this as an effort by you to make it into a hit piece on Fred.
Instead of running down a good conservative like Fred with the same old crapola that rehashes the same tired and worn details. Why not post a thread that supports your guy, Duncan Hunter.
We all know Fred`s political mentor was the moderate Republican, Howard Baker. And we all should remember that Baker served as Reagan's Chief of Staff. If Baker was good enough to advise Reagan during the Iran-Contra Affair, he's good enough to advise Fred. We also know that Fred was the GOP`s Chief Watergate Legal Council. Fred was also a lobbyist and an actor. Fred also supported CFR. A mistake he's partially renounced --- the issue ad provision or the so-called, anti-free speech provision. The same provision that was shot down by the SCOTUS. Fred did vote to convict Clinton on one of two charges. The fact remains, it takes 67 votes to convict a POTUS on an indictment coming from the House. The votes were 50/50 on the obstruction of justice charge --- with Fred voting for it --- and 45/55 on the perjury charge.
I know you don't like Fred, but these endless efforts to undermine Fred`s campaign aren't working. They're nothing more than an act of desperation on the part of FR`s Duncanista contingent.
If not a snit, what shall we call it when you cluck with disapproval, like adding typical? I don't know what to call that.
And anyway, what do you think of the article? I thought it was relatively fair, seeing as this is the NYT and all.
How so? He voted to remove Clinton from office. He only needed to be convicted on one charge to be removed, not both.
Well, there is a ... at the only break in the article to indicate an edit. And the stuff I included has as much postive information about him (e.g. the ACU rating) as anything else in the article.
Instead of running down a good conservative like Fred with the same old crapola that rehashes the same tired and worn details. Why not post a thread that supports your guy, Duncan Hunter.
What running down? Geez. I just posted a fairly neutral article (especially for the NYT) in a fairly neutral manner. If there was something in it to run FDT down with, I might have had something to say, but there wasn't. So I just posted the article which I thought it might be of general FR interest. And anyway, I support Romney, not DH (You must be thinking of pissant).
Plutarch is the prez...
>>>>>And anyway, I support Romney, not DH ....
Romney or Hunter, its all about the same crapola.
You’re very kind. A worthy representation.
You go, Reagan Man. Pluto is just taking up where the head Duncanista left off. Same kind of garbage.
All I remember about Fred in Congress is John Glenn rolling him in the “investigation” of transfers of high satellite technology and other high tech to China (Loral?). It iey that Glenn took this tact at the time, but later his motivation became clear when the old fart got to fly once again into space. But Fred just couldn’t get anywhere, due mainly to his then inexperience. Now I see him as potentially another Bob Dole: old and tired. I do like him though. I think many of us are split over (a) who we like, (b) who can win GOP nomination and (c) who can win the General election. All different kettles of fish.
The New York Times? THE NEW YORK TIMES?? It’s almost impossible to believe but the NYT actually wrote a fair piece about a Republican. It might even do Fred some good.
We have all heard the “old and tired” crap, and as far as I am concerned, IT is OLD and Tired.
Which candidate are you for, Romney?
I have watched many videos on Fred and he never seems old and tired, just a man of conviction and compassion and very genuine.
Now, on the other hand, the Mittser comes across as too slick by half IMHO.
+
+
"GOP"
=
Ah yes, the Old Grey Lady, damning Fred with faint praise.
If Fred wins the nod he should pick John Kasich of Ohio as his running mate.
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.