Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 12/16/2007 10:01:55 PM PST by bd476
From his campaign website:
And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy.
This is, essentially, the regrettable "precautionary principle".
Anyway, I'm hoping to get a chance to ask him about it this week; we'll see what happens.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
I WORK IN TIPTON, SO I’LL TRY AND SEE HIM ON THE TOUR WEDNESDAY AT 1:00. Everything is covered with snow, and it will probably be colder than a witches .....
I was hoping she would; the only answer Fred got to give was, "I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming." Which was a great answer itself after Keyes' aimless rant.
I have read his Paul Harvey global warming statement; it's brilliant, but I'm not sure he's standing by it. Hope so.
FRED FRED FRED FRED FRED FRED FRED FRED
GO FRED!!
It was a joke. The moderator asked Keyes about global warming, and his answer was a rant completely unrelated to the question. Fred said, "I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming", which got laughs all around. Very funny line.
Pardon me if I have to be frank, but, we need to stick with Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, them 2 will make a great ticket, they are our only clear choice.
Hunter is a good man, but I have no interest in him as a candidate. He's hyper-protectionist on trade and insists on continually using the meaningless phrase "trade loss" to describe the fact that we're buying more from China than we're selling to them. Economic populism just plain annoys me. And Fred's *not* the "only" clear choice; none of our candidates are perfect.
I wish there was away I can convince you and persuade you to support Fred and not waver.
Well, Fred himself gets a chance in person on Tuesday; we'll see how it goes.
I am not happy with the other candidates, I agree with Rush, that out of the top 4, Fred is the only true conservative.
Rush had good things to say about Fred, but your paraphrase is a rather gross mischaracterization of them.
This is pathetic.
Fred needs to start running on a campaign of “I’ve been conservative the longest” and start running a campaign on being the most serious and qualified candidate in very serious and dangerous times. Being “the conservative choice” only works if people also see him as credible on issues such as terrorism. He needs to be highlighting his experience as chairman of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board and such. People want a tough candidate who is ready, willing, and able to take on the serious issues facing America. First Fred most prove he is viable on these issues, terrorism chief among them, and only then will him being “the conservative choice” be weighed as a factor.
This is pathetic.
Fred needs to stop running on a campaign of “I’ve been conservative the longest” and start running a campaign on being the most serious and qualified candidate in very serious and dangerous times. Being “the conservative choice” only works if people also see him as credible on issues such as terrorism. He needs to be highlighting his experience as chairman of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board and such. People want a tough candidate who is ready, willing, and able to take on the serious issues facing America. First Fred most prove he is viable on these issues, terrorism chief among them, and only then will him being “the conservative choice” be weighed as a factor.
I hope Fred knows what he’s doing. He seems to be going into overdrive towards the end of this primary season while sitting out the first half. I hope its not too little too late. Out of the top tier candidates, it is true that Fred is the most conservative. The only thing he screwed up in my opinion was supporting the McCain/Feingold anti first amendment bill. He has apologized for that and now renounces it. I like Romney, but he has flip flopped on just too many issues where it seems that he is pandering to get conservative votes. I liked Huckabee at first, but the more I find out about him, the less I like. Too many tax raises, weak on immigration and nanny state beliefs in government.
Because of there only being one conservative in the top five candidates, I believe Rush Limbaugh could help out tremendously. I agree with his position to not interfere with the primaries by giving out support to someone. Let the candidates fight it out and win the nomination on their own. However, that position only holds true when the top tier candidates hold mostly conservative viewpoints. When only one candidate by and large holds conservative viewpoints out of the top tier of candidates I think it is time for Rush to rethink his position on this and come out in support of that candidate.
I think Fred's strategy is a good one. The mainstream media has consistently tagged him with the "too lazy/no fire in the belly" mantra -- something Fred didn't help with by sitting out for too long and keeping a light schedule. BUT, in the next few weeks, Iowa's going to witness a man campaigning like mad, and newspapers & TV stations raising questions like "Has he found his fire?" and "Is he too late?"
I think that'll give some voters a reason to look at his record. And, if they're conservatives, they'll like him.
Provided Gov. Huckabee is given his due scrutiny on taxes, immigration, pardons, donors, etc., I wouldn't be surprised to see Fred make an Iowa surge. And who knows what momentum can do from there...
You stated earlier in this thread that you were previously leaning towards Romney, but would support Thompson provided he unequivocably declared global warming to be a hoax. If this is truly your remaining criterion before making a firm decision, then there is one more question which needs an answer: "Has Romney declared global warming to be a hoax?"
If he has done so, then your line of argument is consistent and honest. If he has not, then there is something else at play, and your argument sounds remarkably like the myriad of "desperately seeking something to object to" posts which pervade these discussions.
Which is it?
Lazy.
If he has done so, then your line of argument is consistent and honest. If he has not, then there is something else at play, and your argument sounds remarkably like the myriad of "desperately seeking something to object to" posts which pervade these discussions.
Which is it?
Romney has not done so; he's basically taken the Bush line on it, which is better than most of the others but still not great. I'm supporting him because, so far, he's the closest match to what I'm looking for, with Thompson as a close second. But such a declaration from Thompson - or anyone else - would put them over the top for me. Unfortunately nobody in the race has had the courage to say it yet. I fail to see how this is inconsistent or dishonest.
With your clarification which I underlined above, that's a fair enough answer. As long as you are applying that criterion to all candidates equally it negates the appearance of inconsistency.
Looks like Fred’s gonna be in your neck of the woods this week!
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.