Fred Thompson Is Finished

aim.org ^ | November 7, 2007 | Cliff Kincaid

[Tailgunner Joe]

On the matter of Terri Schiavo’s right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, “in consultation with their doctor,” and “the federal government should not be involved.” Thompson added, “the less government the better.” ...

In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...

There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.

“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompson’s daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an “end-of-life” issue.

Bobby Schindler says he doesn’t know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sister’s case.

“What no one is recognizing,” he told me, “is that my sister’s case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasn’t dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasn’t on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didn’t even need to be confined to a bed.”

[Kevmo]

And here was my reply to that same post on this other thread.

The forum over at Intrade has some interesting discussions on how and why Fred has been tanking.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922408/posts?page=183#183

To: ellery
Thanks for the articles. I note that even in 2004, Intrade had $2M being bet back & forth on GWB. There was an attempt to manipulate it per Wikipedia, but it failed. These markets are not perfectly efficient (no market is) but they are better predictors than anything else, including pundits and especially MSM Polls more than a year out. These markets are here to stay, and their presence is growing, especially in corporate america as internal vehicles to help get a handle on aggregated conventional wisdom.

From the article you pointed to:
Those Spurious Presidential Futures:
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rms/rmoney/barryritholtz/10185976.html

Intrade.com claims to be the largest futures exchange in the world, and its biggest contract — the George W. Bush futures — has about $2 million invested currently.

.

.

.

Excerpt from

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14leonhardt.html?ex=1329109200&en=ea921473018438fa&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

A little before 1 a.m. — with the Intrade odds at 37 percent — CNN broadcast a live interview with John Aravosis, a liberal activist. “We pretty much know where we are,” Mr. Aravosis said. “The Dems have the House. Republicans have the Senate. And, you know, I don’t think that’s going to change by morning.”

It did change, of course. Mr. Allen soon conceded, and the Democrats began planning their majority. Mr. Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, sitting in the comfort of his living room, had been a better pundit than most of the professionals on television, thanks to a Web site that is based in Ireland.

Over the last few years, Intrade — with headquarters in Dublin, where the gambling laws are loose — has become the biggest success story among a new crop of prediction markets.

.

.

.

.

Excerpt from

http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/02/were-the-intrade-prediction-markets-on-the-november-2006s-senate-elections-accurate/

Were the InTrade prediction markets on the November 2006’s Senate elections accurate?
Chris. F. Masse August 2nd, 2007

Revisiting the issue, almost one year later.

Lance Fortnow (University of Chicago) wrote:

So how did those predictions go? In short you can say the markets predicted every individual race correctly but got the senate wrong, but let us look a little more carefully.

At about 9 AM CST on the morning of election day I made a snap shot of the map for a Discovery Channel Website article.

Every state colored blue was won by a democrat and every state colored red went to a republican. But also note the 69% given to GOP (Republican) Senate control although this election will give control to the democrats. No outcome would have made all the states and senate control agree with the 9 AM map.

Were the markets inconsistent? No, because the markets predict not absolutely but probabilistically. For example, the markets gave a probability of winning 60% for each of Virginia and Missouri and the democrats needed both to take the senate. If these races were independent events, the probability that the democrats take both is 36% or a 64% chance of GOP senate control assuming no other surprises.

Of course the races were not independent events and there are other states involved making it more difficult to compare the probabilities of the individual races with that of senate control.

So how did the markets do as predictors? Quite well as the outcome seems quite reasonable given the markets. Other outcomes would have also been reasonable such as the Democrats losing Virginia and the senate remaining in republican hands, a possibility that came very close to happening.

.

.

.

Excerpt from

New York Times on prediction markets — REDUX
Chris. F. Masse February 14th, 2007

- New York Times.

- Justin Wolfers Interview - by New York Times - (MP3) - 2007-02-14
http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/02/14/new-york-times-on-prediction-markets-redux/

- Justin Wolfers‘ comment on my “08 is two years away [*]” comment:

Your concern about the accuracy of markets two years out seems entirely well placed. But again - and I think it is worth saying this over and over - the relevant question is whether the markets do a better job than alternative information aggregation devices. My own analysis (with Andrew Leigh) of Australian polling data suggests that any polling done more than a year before an election is essentially useless. That is, you are better off simply guessing that the previous election results will repeat themselves, than you are using early polls.

.

.

.

Excerpt from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market

In the Tradesports 2004 presidential markets there was an apparent manipulation effort. An anonymous trader sold short so many Bush 2004 presidential futures contracts that the price was driven to zero, implying a zero percent chance that Bush would win. The only rational purpose of such a trade would be an attempt to manipulate the market in a strategy called a “bear raid”. If this was a deliberate manipulation effort it failed, however, as the price of the contract rebounded rapidly to its previous level. As more press attention is paid to prediction markets, it is likely that more groups will be motivated to manipulate them. However, in practice, such attempts at manipulation have always proven to be very short lived. In their paper entitled “Information Aggregation and Manipulation in an Experimental Market” (2005),[11] Hanson, Oprea and Porter (George Mason U), show how attempts at market manipulation in fact end up increasing the accuracy of the market because they provide that much more profit incentive to bet against the manipulator.

[TigersEye]

“Where there is life there is hope!” - Terri Schiavo

[John Valentine]

I don’t care if you think differently than I do. That’s what makes life interesting. But you need to have a better understanding of what went into the Constitution before you start tearing into it. It’s a very closely crafted and balanced document, and VERY well thought out.

And it is a compromise. In a recent post Tailgunner Joe raised the level of the discussion tangibly by quoting from Federalist No. 9. He and I might have disagreements about this or that, but at least we are giving proper respect to the opinions of those who actually did the work.

As far as voting is concerned, I agree. It is a bit disconcerting to know that there are millions of truly ignorant votes cast. It is an imperfect world when seen through that prism. But at least it’s good news for Democrats.

[Kevmo]

Thompson Tanking in Futures Markets (Intrade, IEM)
Intrade; Iowa Electronic Markets ^ | October 31, 2008

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919127/posts

Intrade forum discussion
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page

[Cindy]

“He is deliberately being held down in the press by all indications.”

MEGA DITTO.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Perhaps the state of Florida had an interest, but not the Feds, at least according to my copy of the Constitution.

"nor shall any state... deprive any person of life... without due process of law..."

You forgot that part.

[ejonesie22]

Yawn...

Uh huh...

Anyways, I’ll take 3 eggs scambled, bacon...

[SergeiRachmaninov]

Thompson is a likable man who should not be our next President.

Well, put.

Many earnest conservatives here made the reasonable decision to eschew nail-biting and make a choice. And many of them picked Fred.

As often happens, when we go more with our hearts and our hopes than our heads and the record, they are being disappointed. Fred is clearly not the man on the white horse that many had hoped and believed he was. For them, these are bitter days.

I respect you all, Fredheads. The choice of a candidate is a close call for many of us. Few of us see a perfect candidate but, once having picked one, many of us feel the need to put him on an unassailable pedestal. When he falls, it is painful.

Conservatism still needs you this season, Fredheads. You'll find a new candidate...and he may be a winner. A Hillary victory is not written...unless we write it.

[George W. Bush]

What a sad exploitative hitpiece this is.

And I am sick of this Terry Schiavo crap.

Where are all these people whose entire lives revolve around Terri Schiavo and her tragic story when it comes to actually doing anything about it? Why aren't they trying to pass federal laws to prevent future cases like this? Where are they in the Florida legislature and in other state legislatures to pass laws to protect the Terris at the state level?

This is a bunch of crap. All they want to do is punish anyone who didn't ever agree with them or their tactics. I don't think they even care about actually changing the laws.

But they sure know how to milk the issue for all its worth.

So how many family members and local pro-life leaders are working for and benefiting from the Schiavo Foundation anyway? I think some disclosure is in order. Who are they and how much are they making off the Schiavo tragedy? How many of them are going on the church circuit to turn up a pretty penny wailing over Terri Schiavo's tragedy?

These Schiavo threads shouldn't be allowed here at FR. They're nothing but complete flamebait and one gets the impression that the intent in posting them is to hijack both the pro-life movement and the Republican party from a group of "activists" who may have other motives and who don't even seem interested in passing legislation to prevent future situations like this one.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Post #4 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Clara Lou]

I must be saying something very dangerous then, huh?
Dangerously ignorant, perhaps. And what's worse, you seem to be proud of it.

[George W. Bush]

Well, with the Declaration of Independence stating that we have inalienable rights granted from God, our Creator — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “

The strange literalism you wish to attach to the Declaration is completely ignorant and wrongheaded.

The Declaration, although a document declaring the rights of man as having a divine source, is not a fundamental legal document. It's legal content, what little there is, is never brought into a court case because it is and always was intended to be a declaration of the religious basis by which men can overturn the rule of tyrant kings and, in particular, the rule of the tyrant, King George III. At the time, the state churches of Europe and in the colonies taught, virtually without exception, that the right of kings had a divine origin and that it was a sin to rebel against the king whicfh God Himself had appointed to be your dictator. This was, in fact, itself a gross misuse of holy scripture as the Bible itself is not a political document and does not favor monarchs over democracies or republics or any other form of government.

That is and was the only purpose of the Declaration. Stop distorting history by pretending that the Declaration is or ever was binding upon our federal or state governments in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is.

You people have a flat-earth view of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and you clearly know nothing about any of them.

I don't think you could even get Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to agree with your strained notion that the Declaration is binding legal document and applicable to a medical case.

Well, I've got news for you. It wasn't the Queen of England who deprived Terri Schiavo of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and without representation in Parliament, a key reason for our revolt against the Crown. Therefore, the Declaration is moot in regard to this tragic case.

[Pistolshot]

Fredheads. You'll find a new candidate...and he may be a winner.

Fred is running 2nd in most of the polls and will be our candidate, and he is a winner. You will get on board in that effort when the time comes.

It's nice for you to dismiss any candidate that doesn't meet your well defined criteria, even Ronald Maximus had his failings, but his message was a one of hope and patriotism. He came at a time when we were in peril, lost in our way, and wandering.

His message was simple. America is strong and always will be, we just have to believe in it.

He also understood that the rule of law, not the rule of religion is what makes this nation great.

We are now again in a time of peril. Our enemies will not 'negotiate' as the Dims want, they want our heads, and have proven it over and over again. Our 'freinds' can be counted on one hand, and the rest just want us to be there to pay for everything.

Fred also sees that peril, the one of open borders, China, Jihadism, economic disaster, and the future of those yet unborn to pay for it. He has had revision of some of his earlier failings, AS ANY GOOD MAN WILL DO AS HE GAINS WISDOM.

As a nation of laws, we are bound to protect ALL views, even those we do not care for, and through the ballot box is the way we make change. Not by judicial fiat as with R v W or by decree that some want in an EO or other such nonsense that is more dictatorial than democratic.

Fred understands this one fundamental above the rest, the people need to decide, that is what the Founding Fathers wanted. Limited government, decisions made by the people, and not controlled from a central government.

That is why so many of us are with Fred. Sadly, you others can't see why, and probably won't until it's too late.

[rintense]

Bill O said he was finished last night too. Not surprised since he also picked Rudy for the nomination.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Killing Terri was wrong, and the government should not have been involved. Government passes laws for the common good, not for INDIVIDUALS!
Thompson was right and he’s not finished.

[George W. Bush]

Bill O said he was finished last night too. Not surprised since he also picked Rudy for the nomination.

You may have read Ann Coulter's review of John Lott's new book where he documents that 81% of Fox News employees donate to the Democrat party. Here's a quote:

Fox News Channel isn't conservative: "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."

Felons Smarter Than Liberals (Ann Coulter Early Bird Special Alert)

The owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, has given millions to Hitlery and virtually nothing to Republicans.

And what attention is given to Republicans is essentially giving a free Monica to the leftwing mayor of NYC.

If truth in media was the law of the land, Fox News would have to have Hume, Krauthammer, and Fred Thompson appear only wearing blue dresses and "Rudi, Rudi, Rudi" campaign pins on their bodices.

Murdoch is supporting Hitlery. Rudi is just their backup plan if they can't elect Hitlery.

Folks, turn off Fox News. And support your own conservative candidates. Don't let Murdoch and his blue-dressed minions foist our enemy, the leftwing mayor, on our conservative party. It's a fraud. Fox News is a fraud, a Judas Goat to the Right.

Fox News is not our friend. They have not been in years. Fair and balanced, my white shiny butt. And "We report, you decide" has turned into "We report, we decide that you need a leftwing nominee".

Downgrade your cable and satellite packages. Ignore the morons and shills on Fox News. They are libmedia just like the rest. Brit Hume leads a team that is the second coming of the Nelson Rockefeller liberal northeast wing of the party. Well, this is our party, not theirs. Ronald Reagan wrenched it away from them and he left it in our care. So they can choose what they want: support us or accept the hard-Left socialists of the Dim party. We won't compromise. Ever.

[George W. Bush]

If truth in media was the law of the land, Fox News would have to have Hume, Krauthammer, and Fred Thompson Barnes appear only wearing blue dresses and "Rudi, Rudi, Rudi" campaign pins on their bodices.

LOL. More coffee, need more coffee.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You can’t scold voters into being happy with your candidate.

[Turbo Pig]

God’s intent was to put her exactly where she was, and to have what happened to her, happen. There was a lesson in her death that people may, or may not have learned. I am not going to pretend to understand God’s will on all things, I do know where this incident directed me, though.

[Dianna]

Well, if your husband botches your murder and we all find you in a state where you can’t speak for yourself, you may be glad for some intervention... at that future time. Let’s hope your husband never opts to murder you (or perhaps he should succeed if he tries... LOL!)....

If investigation, at the time, shows my husband deliberately harmed me, then he should lose his decision-making powers and he should be criminally charged.

The point is that we, as a society, have created law to determine decision-making in these cases. In the vast majority of cases, the law works well.

Michael, being the husband, had the authority to determine Terri's "treatment". Terri's parents had no legal authority. Florida law stated that it was legal to withhold a feeding tube. No/little investigation was done at the time of injury to be able to say one way or another what happened. Case closed, IMO.

It bothers me tremendously that FReepers want to ignore written law, voted on by the people, and involve courts/State government/Federal government in making these decisions.