Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active. .
Posted on 06/30/2007 7:30:43 PM PDT by Rockitz
Former Senator Fred Thompson took first place in a Presidential Preference straw poll conducted by the California Republican Assembly at its annual convention.
Thompson received 25% percent of the convention delegates' votes, easily beating the two runners up, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Governor Mitt Romney who each received 19% of the vote.
Complete straw poll results follow:
Fred Thompson..............25%
Duncan Hunter...............19%
Mitt Romney..................19%
Ron Paul........................12%
Tom Tancredo..................8%
Newt Gingrich...................7%
Sam Brownback...............3%
Mike Huckabee................0%
Tommy Thompson............0%
25+19+19+12+8+7+7+3 = 100
At least according to #22. He has Giuliani getting the 7%
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active. .
Where is Julie Annie and Mccain in this poll?
This poll was back in April. The latest 2 polls on California have Rudy leading by 9% and 18% over Thompson. There was a wild Datamar poll 2 and half weeks ago that had Romney at 32% and Thompson at 5%, but no-one has taken that poll seriously.
Glad I left the CRA. Actually, they left me. They used to be for family/conservative values.
Going for Fred T, a guy who voted for McCain/Feingold and who voted to let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment.
Like I said, glad I left the CRA. I like Mike Spence, though.
Why weren’t Giuliani and McCain mentioned? Giuliani recently came to CA declaring he would run the U.S. like Schwarzenegger is running CA. (I can’t think of anything worse.) McCain is half of McCain/Feingold which is why I can’t figure out why they’d endorse a guy (Fred T) who voted for McCain/Feingold. Not to mention Fred T voting the let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment. Makes no sense. But then the CRA is the group that endorsed Gary Bauer for President. I don’t think they have much credibility except in their own little minds.
Is deeming the CRA as constituted of "little minds" a conclusion based upon an objective observation or a matter of personal opinion? Upon what basis is such an epithet directed?
If they endorsed Gary Bauer for President, I would have to highly question their credibility also.
Conservatives, and other like minded individuals do not want to get burned again by supporting Rudy for president. If we support Rudy we’d just get a Senator Lieberman instead. Liberal leftist who supports the good fight on the war on terror.
If we know how Arnold governs California today, you can probably guess how Rudy will govern as president.
I agree with you. I did not and would not judge them as having little minds. However, I still do question their credibility if they have a habit of making such poor political judgements. I don’t know if they do, as I have never researched their past.
Ahh, there it is. The chads came through for Rudy in the recount.
Go Fred (if he ever announces...)
Saundra Duffy wrote: “Not to mention Fred T voting the (sic) let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment.”
For about the zillionth time, Fred Thompson voted to impeach Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice, writing:
“Time and again, and with premeditation, he was willing to use government personnel to assist in his coverup and his lies, acknowledging part of the truth only when confronted with physical evidence. And he carried his lies and cover up right on into legal proceedings with the grace and ease of someone who regarded a court of law as deserving of no more respect than if he were dealing with a stranger on the street. It is this persistent relentless, remorseless pattern of conduct that requires a verdict of guilty. He was willing to lie, defame, hide evidence and enlist anyone necessary, including government employees over and over again. At every juncture when he had the opportunity to stop, relent or come clean with a forgiving public, he chose instead to go forward. And even today he refuses to acknowledge the damage he has done to the Presidency and the Judiciary, choosing instead to rely upon his high job approval rating and acknowledging only what he is forced to after the production of physical evidence.”
“At a time when all of our institutions are under assault, when the Presidency has been diminished and the Congress is viewed with scepticism, our Judiciary and our court system have remarkably maintained the public’s confidence. Now the President’s actions are known to every school child in America. And in the midst of these partisan battles, many people still think this matter is just `lying about sex.’ But little by little, there will be a growing appreciation that it is about much more than that. And in years to come, in every court house in every town in America, juries, judges, and litigants will have the President’s actions as a bench mark against which to measure any attempted subversion of the judicial process. The notion that anyone, no matter how powerless, can get equal justice will be seen by some as a farce. And our rule of law — the principle that many other countries still dream about — the principle that sets us apart, will have been severely damaged. If this does not constitute damage to our government and our society, I cannot imagine what does. And for that he should be convicted.”
He couldn’t follow suit on the perjury charge because the House did such a poor job of constructing and wording it. Sen. Thompson explained:
“Never has the Senate convicted on an article worded such as this. Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury. At the outset, it is clear that a count such as this in an indictment would not survive court challenge...”
You know this, yet you continually repeat the lie that Fred “let Clinton off the hook.” This shows not only a lack of intellectual honesty on your part, but you’ve obviously contracted a bad case of TDS - Thompson Derangement Syndrome. Congratualations! That’s something that you and Hillary have in common.
Another interesting observation: the only reason Duncan Hunter didn’t win this is that Tom Tancredo and Hunter are splitting the conservative vote.
But California is Hunter’s home state. Shouln’t Hunter, the most conservative of all the candidates, have won a straw poll of conservatives in his own home state?
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.