[Note: I don't intend to cross-post very often from Blogs for Fred. But since we are giving away free stuff I thought I'd make an exception.]
If you have a blog, now is the time to join our growing coalition of savvy bloggers who believe Fred Dalton Thompson is the right choice for president of the United States. Blogs for Fred has teamed up with The Fred Store to encourage FDT supporters in the blogosphere, and to launch their store, they've given bloggers a pretty sweet deal.
For a limited time, if you add your blog to the Blogs for Fred blogroll, our friends at The Fred Store will send you a FREE (shipping included!) coffee mug and bumper sticker that says "I Blog for Fred."
Here's how it works: when you add your blog, the editors here at Blogs for Fred will send you an email containing a code which you can use at The Fred Store to get your free items. Be sure to check out the rest of their store while you're there. These guys are serious about getting Fred Thompson elected, and they know that bloggers play a key role. They're giving us a really generous deal, so we encourage you to write about them, link to them and get to know them.
Add your blog today, and send this offer around the "Fredosphere." (If you've already added your blog, you've been grandfathered in, so look for your code soon!)
Apart from the stuff that has recently come to light about Thompson's real roll in the Watergate investigation, didn't Thompson work as a lobbyist for a pro-choice group during the first Bush Administration and aren't Evangelical voters going to have a hard time with that...?
I cant be bought with a coffee mug. NO SALE ON THE ABORTION LOBYYIST!
Are you kidding me?
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family-planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.
In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." Follow the money! I don't think Fred Thompson would provide counsel without billing for his services and the group has no record of paying him. No record, no proof! It didn't happen.
And a typewritten piece of paper without signatures is proof? Nope. I can type up anything I want... I could give myself a raise, I could fire you, I could type ANYTHING, but that doesn't make it authentic.
A man sleazy enough to lobby for abortion is sleazy enough to lie to pro-lifers about it when asking for their vote. Gimme a fricken break.
So... I guess the only real issue is the idea that he's been misrepresenting his roll in the Watergate investigation for 35 years. Hero to Rodent, at the peed of sound...
What about the fact Thompson was a message boy for Nixon during Watergate and Nixon thought he wasn't too bright?
Joe,
How about Thompson's position on the environment (i.e. senate votes)?
Gee whiz, it was 30 years ago. Come on! Heck, a lot of Republicans were Democrats back then. If we're converting pro-choicers to pro-lifers, or libs to conservatives, then hurrah!
Although, personally, I believe Fred until it is proved otherwise.
Joe,
How about Thompson's position on the environment (i.e. senate votes)?
Greg, JohnW, and RepublicanWomenAgainstFredThompson,
Let's assume that you are right about Sen. Thompson's lobbying and about his being a mole for President Nixon.
But let's say, as a hypothetical, that neither of those things were true. Let's pretend that we know for a fact that Sen. Thompson was an agressive, intelligent, and meticulously ethical counsel to the Watergate committee, and let's also pretend that he would never even consider lobbying for a pro-abortion group.
Assuming those two hypothetical conditions, what would be your opinion of Sen. Thompson in that case? Would you like him, or not like him? Why/why not?
Without going into a lengthy discussion, I'll just say my opinion of him is he has a likeable demeanor and seems like a decent guy. I need to know more about the man. Just because Nixon was caught on tape saying Thompson was not so bright doesn't mean that much.
In all honesty though, the only republican candidate I would even consider supporting is Ron Paul. He is a man of integrity and intelligence. Frankly, in the debate all the others seemed like cartoon characters.
People should not listen when the media tells them who is and is not a viable candidate-it's for we, the people to decide this.
Restore the Republic - Ron Paul 2008 !
He Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998!!!
He Voted to kill programs that were intended to assist employers in verifying whether people they had just hired had the legal right to work in this country!!!!!
Sen. Thompson, in committee consideration of S.1664 protected businesses from having to pay higher fines when they are caught hiring illegal aliens!!!!
Voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans (yes those same cubans he now calls terrorists...) who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S!!!
NO SALE ON FRAUD THOMPSON!!!
Alexander Scott wants to say that, well, golly, it was over 30 years ago when he was Nixon's water boy. My point isn't that he did it; my point is that he's lied about it - and continues to brag about being something he wasn't. He's lied about it recently, not 30 years ago.
Matthew Goggins wants to pretend, hypothetically, that Thompson wasn't Nixon's water boy. But we have it on tape from Nixon's mouth, Howard Baker's mouth, and Nixon's attorneys mouth that Thompson WAS Nixon's man inside the investigation. On tape. So what's the point of that hypothetical exercise? Let's spend a few minutes pretending frogs had wings, as well...
It would be nice to see your reasons for supporting Fred Thompson and an assessment of the other people who have thrown their names into the hat. What are his and their strong and weak points? Maybe you've already posted something to this effect in the past and I missed it, in which case, I apologize!
John,
... he has a likeable demeanor and seems like a decent guy.
That's my impression, too. And that goes a long, long way when I'm trying to decide who to support for president.
RWAgainstFT,
Come on, tell us how you really feel ;)
I don't share all the passions you seem to have on the subject of immigration, so it's hard for me to relate to your sense of grievance.
And I believe you make a mistake when you say,
Voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans (yes those same cubans he now calls terrorists...)
You are lumping in a lot of people with the relative handful of Cuban intelligence agents that Sen. Thompson was actually making reference to.
Greg,
Well, if Sen. Thompson really has been lying about his role as President Nixon's mole, then that would disqualify him from being a worthy presidential contender, in my view.
But you haven't answered my question, because you're still assuming that he's lying. The purpose of my hypothetical exercise is to attempt to determine on what grounds we can have a productive conversation about all this.
If you still hated Sen. Thompson even in the context of my hypothetical assumptions, then that would be fine, and we could discuss why you had other reasons for hating him. If you didn't hate Sen. Thompson, then we could try to figure out how much truth are in your allegations and how damning they actually are.
And if you still refuse to answer what is actually a fairly straightforward question, that would be fine too. But I probably wouldn't have much to say to you in that case.
Alexander Scott wants to say that, well, golly, it was over 30 years ago when he was Nixon's water boy. My point isn't that he did it; my point is that he's lied about it - and continues to brag about being something he wasn't. He's lied about it recently, not 30 years ago.
Matthew Goggins wants to pretend, hypothetically, that Thompson wasn't Nixon's water boy. But we have it on tape from Nixon's mouth, Howard Baker's mouth, and Nixon's attorneys mouth that Thompson WAS Nixon's man inside the investigation. On tape. So what's the point of that hypothetical exercise? Let's spend a few minutes pretending frogs had wings, as well...
Alexander Scott wants to say that, well, golly, it was over 30 years ago when he was Nixon's water boy. My point isn't that he did it; my point is that he's lied about it - and continues to brag about being something he wasn't. He's lied about it recently, not 30 years ago.
Matthew Goggins wants to pretend, hypothetically, that Thompson wasn't Nixon's water boy. But we have it on tape from Nixon's mouth, Howard Baker's mouth, and Nixon's attorneys mouth that Thompson WAS Nixon's man inside the investigation. On tape. So what's the point of that hypothetical exercise? Let's spend a few minutes pretending frogs had wings, as well...
Hey, Matthew, maybe you agree with me on this? When I watch the republican debates, it's Romney would "looks" the most presidential, right?
Rudy looks kind of presidential, but he's too short...
As for Democrats - Obama looks pretty presidential too. Edwards looks good too, but not in a presidential way. And Hillary looks like what one would normally visualize when thinking of a female president.
Voting based on looks/impressions really might not be such a bad idea...
Matt,
First let me apologize to whomever for the doubled post. My connection is sluggish. Maybe someone can delete it...
John,
Very funny!
I meant that being a decent guy goes a long way.
Here's what I think of the other candidates so far:
Rudy's my second choice after Sen. Thompson. Or he's my first choice if Sen. Thompson is actually a chronically duplicitous Nixon mole.
However, Rudy is kind of a scary person in his temperament, and I would much prefer to see a President Thompson than a President Giuliani.
Governor Romney seems like a Republican version of President Clinton: slick Mitt, willing to say whatever he thinks people want to hear. I don't trust him.
Sen. Obama seems okay, but I disagee with him on a lot of issues, especially on the war in Iraq, so I can't support him, except in opposition to other Democrats who are worse. The Democrat I most wish to be hawkish, so I could support him, would be Gov. Bill Richardson.
Hillary is the worst person running who has any real level of support. I would vote for Al Sharpton -- I would campaign for Al Sharpton -- if I thought he had a chance of beating Sen. Clinton.
Greg,
Thank you for your responses. You have obviously given Fred Thompson a lot of thought, so I am glad you are sharing your point of view with us.
I think Thompson comes out of the GOP Culture of Corruption.
As was the case with your Watergate accusations, being a member of the corruption culture would be damning in my view if it were true. At this point it is possible that you are correct, but I certainly hope you are mistaken.
I think Thompson's opinions on Scotter Libby and whether Libby should go to jail for breaking the law four times says a lot about him and about his view of executive branch power.
It is unusual for a lawyer and a former prosecutor to come out so dramatically in favor of leniency. I understand your point.
However, Scooter Libby is a close friend of Sen. Thompson, and I can easily imagine that Sen. Thompson is 100% correct for lobbying so hard on behalf of his friend. So whether or not Sen. Thompson has been acting or thinking inappropriately is wholly dependent on the merits on the underlying case.
At this point I am very inclined to side with Sen. Thompson, but I am also open to opposing evidence and arguments.
Thompson supports the drug lobby by opposing American access to cheaper overseas drug markets.
I disagree with you on re-importing drugs. I think it is bad policy.
And I suspect that Thompson and I would disagree on a great many issues that revolve around the philosophical question of how much government should do.
Sen. Thompson is a staunch federalist in his rhetoric.
I like federalism as a default position, but I am not an ideologue about it. I am probably a lot more comfortable with Sen. Thompson's political philosophy than you are, but I understand your misgivings.
So what about the Nixon mole stuff?
I don't know, I'd like to learn more. In particular, I won't pass judgement until I've heard Sen. Thompson's side of the story and I have had a chance to weigh it properly.
Thanks again,
Matthew
Hi Matthew.
The war is an issue that allows for so many perspectives. Mine is simple, really. I spent 10 years with one of the more aggressive missions organizations out there; American military involvement in the Middle East hinders the spread of the gospel in Islamic nations. Christianity is often linked with America in the Muslim mind even outside the Middle East. I'm far more interested in the Great Commission than in the spread of democracy. I think the war in Iraq is bad. Contrast that with the War in Afghanistan where over the last few decades a great deal of good will has been created by Christians who served the refugee communities along the Pakistan border and I'm not willing to make those same statements about our involvement there...
Having lived in other countries, I think our medical system in general is far too restrictive. National health care is an issue for me. Let's face it: it's just plain cheaper in the long run for us to provide routine care to people who aren't getting it now than it will be to provide life saving care down the road for those same people when they develop problems that could have been prevented.
My candidate? At the moment my favorite is John Edwards. But I wish he said more about his plans for education...
Greg,
Healthcare:
Republicans have been too passive, Democrats have been too eager to make things more complicated and less efficient.
What is the answer?
How about equalizing tax treatment for those who get insurance from their employers and those who don't, and how about implementing a system of tax credits and federally-subsidized vouchers for health insurance in order to get almost everybody covered?
Others things to consider: revamping insurance regulations to deal with cherry-picking healthy enrollees and to deal with portability and so on.
The war in Iraq and elsewhere:
We must love our fellow people across the globe, and earn their respect through good deeds and good faith.
However, we must notice when people do bad things, and we must make them stop. Responding to crime with "love" is giving an incentive to criminals and penalizing civilized behavior to boot.
On a global scale, that means helping good governments and penalizing or even crushing bad ones. And it means inexorably hunting and dismantling terrorist groups, and not being reluctant to kill terrorists where we find them.
Matthew,
Interesting...
Regarding your ideas on health care (which sound like a good start at the very least to me), Is fred in favor (on the record) of any of them?
You said: "...we must notice when people do bad things, and we must make them stop..."
So, how do you feel about a U.S. peace keeping force in the southern Sudan? I know they have no oil, but shouldn't we be considering sending the Marines to topple Robert Mugabe? If it were as simple as making bad people stop, wouldn't we have troops in Burundi?
Our foreign policy (including Iraq) has largely been about our own interests (or in the case of Iraq, the interests of our leaders).
I wish it was that simple, but your statement sounds romantic...
One of the prices we pay for not having the same bi-partisan support for the war in Iraq that we have for the war in Afghanistan, is that our foreign policy is in a kind of gridlock which makes it impossible for us to send troops to humanitarian crises like the Sudan.
I wish it were otherwise, but that is just the way the past four years have played out. We just don't have the political will right now to deploy troops in Sudan, or in Zimbabwe for that matter, and it's a tragedy.
The Cold War with the Soviet Union was a tragedy too, but at least our side was able to prevail after 40 years.
Matthew wrote: "However, we must notice when people do bad things, and we must make them stop. Responding to crime with "love" is giving an incentive to criminals and penalizing civilized behavior to boot.
On a global scale, that means helping good governments and penalizing or even crushing bad ones. And it means inexorably hunting and dismantling terrorist groups, and not being reluctant to kill terrorists where we find them."
-- Is there a scriptural basis for that in the New Testament? I'm asking as a disillusioned evangelical who stumbled into this discussion thread through a random set of jumps.
Miliukov,
Are you asking the evangelicals here or the atheist that wrote the comment you quoted?
D'oh....!
And thus the dangers of jumping uninformed into a discussion are clearly demonstrated...
Thank you.
Miliukov,
Well, maybe you asked the wrong person, maybe not.
There's certainly warrant for it in the Old Testament, as you know. Does the New Testament suggest we should turn the other cheek to bloodthirsty terrorists? Is that part of the new covenant of Jesus Christ?
It's a very good, interesting question: What would Jesus do... with Al Qaeda?
There have been discussion threads at the Evangelical Outpost which have taken up the issue of pacifism -- is it mandated by Christianity, is it incompatible with Christianity, or is it somewhere inbetween?
As an atheist, I would approach the whole issue by determining the morality of fighting back against terrorists (very moral, an important duty), and then investigating whether Christianity meshes with the morality that has been determined. If it does, then that is good, and if it doesn't, then that is a deficiency in Christianity which should be rejected.
Hmm, when I said 30 years was a long time ago, I meant that people change. Chuck Colson certainly has. I'm much less impressed with someone lying about his past than someone who used to be wrong and admits it.
Come join the troops and show your support at the Fred Thompson Forum. http://fredthompsonforum.com
texas agent auto insurance
texas agent auto insurance