Fred Thompson "What you may not know" - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Ambiguous · #16 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Now why would they form a commitee and have a website dedicated to gathering funds JUST to acquire information on Thompson if he was such a nobody and a Scooter Libby _______________ and a lobbying ____________ and a do-nothing senator?

/chuckle

Like I said earlier. If you take Billary's time in the Senate, Obama Yo Mama's time in the Senate, and Fred's time in the senate...you will find that Fred did more than either.

So THAT is just moot....the lobbying crap will go NOWHERE, his "Trophy wife" is 41 years old, so that is shot to hell for the libs...all the women in his past have been hammered by the left-wing media and they had NOTHING but good to say about him...no scandals anywhere.

The left has no platform against him. So, now they must just begin to claim he is a homosexual racist masochist torturer who does it all for greed and power.

/chuckle

the usual....

Do you honestly believe there is no dirt on the man? If that were the case, and he ended up with no controversy about him, it would be the first time in history that a Presidential candidate went through the election unscathed.

It ain't gunna happen. He'll trip and fall at some point just like they all do.

Meridious · #17 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Never said there was "no dirt" and there can never BE a case where no-dirt can be found...because if there isn't any, the liberals will make it up.

I "honestly believe" that there is NOTHING that will prevent him from becoming the next president.

Ambiguous · #18 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Never said there was "no dirt" and there can never BE a case where no-dirt can be found...because if there isn't any, the liberals will make it up.

I "honestly believe" that there is NOTHING that will prevent him from becoming the next president.

I can't agree. There are far too many things that can happen in the next 16+ months to believe so completely in a politician's infallibility. The only crystal balls which are that clear so far into the future are the ones that we view through rose colored glasses.

Meridious · #19 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

/shrug

I would not bet on your position.

He will be the next president barring his death or his dropping from the race. He will not be "liberaled" out of the race.

Libs WILL WILL WILL nominate Billary...and she WILL pick Obama for VP (unless he becomes a titty baby for losing to her and is too huffy and puffy to accept) and that combination will be the undoing of the liberals' chances for the seat.

And unless Fred is dead, he will win easily.

Ambiguous · #20 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

/shrug

I would not bet on your position.

He will be the next president barring his death or his dropping from the race. He will not be "liberaled" out of the race.

Libs WILL WILL WILL nominate Billary...and she WILL pick Obama for VP (unless he becomes a titty baby for losing to her and is too huffy and puffy to accept) and that combination will be the undoing of the liberals' chances for the seat.

And unless Fred is dead, he will win easily.

And what of the dislike most Americans have for Republicans? Democrats are doing their best to close the gap and become less likeable, but they still have a ways to go. Right now the people in the middle recoil when it comes to Republicans. I haven't seen anything to indicate people are warming up to them.

The Clinton marketing machine is probably the best this country has ever seen, and they are great at remaking images. As the election nears, I have no doubt that Hillary (assuming she wins the nomination) will move to the center as all post-convention candidates do. From the Thompson speeches I've read, he's really good at saying a lot without saying anything of substance. In other words, he's not really any different from any other politician.

CYDdharta · #21 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambiguous

And what of the dislike most Americans have for Republicans? Democrats are doing their best to close the gap and become less likeable, but they still have a ways to go. Right now the people in the middle recoil when it comes to Republicans. I haven't seen anything to indicate people are warming up to them.

Pres Bush's approval rating is currently at 31%; the Dem controlled Congress currently has an approval rating is at 25.2%. People may not be warming up to the Republicans, but they’re not getting as cold a shoulder either. I think the farther away from Washington a candidate can claim to be, the better they’ll do, as is usually the case.

Ambiguous · #22 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Pres Bush's approval rating is currently at 31%; the Dem controlled Congress currently has an approval rating is at 25.2%. People may not be warming up to the Republicans, but they’re not getting as cold a shoulder either. I think the farther away from Washington a candidate can claim to be, the better they’ll do, as is usually the case.

I think they still are getting the cold shoulder. 31% and 25% are not good numbers for either side and show me that voters in general are fed up with politics as usual. Neither side is really doing anything to distinguish itself as better than the other. About the only thing the Republicans can hope for at this point is that the Democrats screw up more in the next year and a half.

Thompson's got the right angle, though. He'll play down his Washington past and try to portray himself as a man of the people. But honestly, I don't see how someone who's been involved in the Washington lobby, was in the Senate for 8 years, and has been in Hollywood for much of that time, can be considered a man of the people. I try to keep in mind that he has experience in front of the camera. He knows how to speak to people and get them to believe what he's saying. Those people, the ones with charisma who seek power, are the ones I'm most wary of.

CYDdharta · #23 (**permalink**) 06-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambiguous

I think they still are getting the cold shoulder. 31% and 25% are not good numbers for either side and show me that voters in general are fed up with politics as usual. Neither side is really doing anything to distinguish itself as better than the other. About the only thing the Republicans can hope for at this point is that the Democrats screw up more in the next year and a half.

Thompson's got the right angle, though. He'll play down his Washington past and try to portray himself as a man of the people. But honestly, I don't see how someone who's been involved in the Washington lobby, was in the Senate for 8 years, and has been in Hollywood for much of that time, can be considered a man of the people. I try to keep in mind that he has experience in front of the camera. He knows how to speak to people and get them to believe what he's saying. Those people, the ones with charisma who seek power, are the ones I'm most wary of.

I think it’s to FDT’s advantage that 3 of the 4 Dem frontrunners, accounting for over 70% of poll respondents, are senators. A message like “After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood" will resonate with many voters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambiguous

Those people, the ones with charisma who seek power, are the ones I'm most wary of.

That was always my opinion of Bill Clinton.

Angry American · #24 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

.... A message like “After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood" will resonate with many voters.

What a load of crap!

The man is more lobbyist than actor; wait a minute, or is he an actor portraying a lobbyist, who was a Senator, who acts on TV ... I'm getting dizzy

Why is it that you people rail against Hollywood, but fall all over yourselves praising actors turned politicians? Despite the fact that he was a lobbyist before he was an actor.

Good ol' voted for the Iraq war Fred, even is surrounding himself with, vote caging, Karl Rove buddy, Tim Griffin; apparently to advise him on communications and message.

Freddie boy is building his team with a rouges gallery of GOP all stars.

I'm sorry, but Fred is just another neo-con hack.

And this crap about him being out of Washington since he left congress is more crap.

Fred Thompson is a lobbyist first and foremost, now with ties to Karl Rove; hardly the kind of person we need to run what's left of our country into the ground.

Oh the hypocrisy.

CYDdharta · #25 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

What a load of crap!

The man is more lobbyist than actor; wait a minute, or is he an actor portraying a lobbyist, who was a Senator, who acts on TV ... I'm getting dizzy

Why is it that you people rail against Hollywood, but fall all over yourselves praising actors turned politicians? Despite the fact that he was a lobbyist before he was an actor.

Good ol' voted for the Iraq war Fred, even is surrounding himself with, vote caging, Karl Rove buddy, Tim Griffin; apparently to advise him on communications and message.

Freddie boy is building his team with a rouges gallery of GOP all stars.

I'm sorry, but Fred is just another neo-con hack.

And this crap about him being out of Washington since he left congress is more crap.

Fred Thompson is a lobbyist first and foremost, now with ties to Karl Rove; hardly the kind of person we need to run what's left of our country into the ground.

Oh the hypocrisy.

I suppose what conservatives need to do in order to run a candidate you would approve of is to stop supporting conservatives.

FDT may have been a lobbyist, but it won’t make a difference. Millions of voters see him every night in a job far from Washington. They’ll give him a chance to make his case. I believe that’s all it’s going to take. Most people aren’t going to delve any deeper than that. The few who do will see he began his career fighting government corruption in the Watergate trial, and, despite his role as a lobbyist, he was instrumental in passing McCain-Feingold, the only significant campaign finance reform in recent history (however misguided it may have been). That vote is going to hurt him a bit in the primaries, but I think it’s going to be a big plus in the general election.

I find it interesting that the actors that do something more than talk about politics, the ones who actually run for an office and get elected, tend to be far to the right of their colleagues.

Angry American · #26 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

I suppose what conservatives need to do in order to run a candidate you would approve of is to stop supporting conservatives.

FDT may have been a lobbyist, but it won’t make a difference. Millions of voters see him every night in a job far from Washington. They’ll give him a chance to make his case. I believe that’s all it’s going to take. Most people aren’t going to delve any deeper than that. The few who do will see he began his career fighting government corruption in the Watergate trial, and, despite his role as a lobbyist, he was instrumental in passing McCain-Feingold, the only significant campaign finance reform in recent history (however misguided it may have been). That vote is going to hurt him a bit in the primaries, but I think it’s going to be a big plus in the general election.

I find it interesting that the actors that do something more than talk about politics, the ones who actually run for an office and get elected, tend to be far to the right of their colleagues.

Last I checked there wasn't a "conservative" Party. As to what the GOP has to do before I can respect anyone they foist as their leader, would be to respect the rule of law, drop all of the hot-button antaginizing talking-points, reverse their love affair with corporate America--putting voters interests above those of lobbyists, reject electronic voting efforts--in favor of paper only ballots, and end all voter intimidation schemes.

When that happens, then maybe I can respect a Republican. But until Republicans change their stripes, they don't deserve to hold any office above municipal dog catcher, as far as I'm concerned.

So when Freddie boy surrounds himself with the crooks and liars who have been a part of the present lawless administration, it just sullies his integrity. He doesn't even give me the impression that he will run a campaign any different from GW's; and with the Supreme Court practically taking the lid off of ads funded by special interests, this presidential campaign is probably going to be the dirtiest, most vitriolic, we've seen in years.

I wouldn't be surprised if Freddie dropped out of Washington before the shit hit the fan, in order to make a 2008 bid; just so he would appear all lilly white--despite the fact he voted to throw the shit at the fan in the first place.

Unfortunately for this country, the electorate has proven its total lack of situational awareness as it applies to picking a President, as the somewhat dubious elections of 2000, and 2004 have shown.

I'd love to be wrong about Freddie more than anything, but I've been right about George and Dick since day one, and I find it hard to believe that Freddie will be any different--Watergate was a long time ago, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

CYDdharta · #27 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Last I checked there wasn't a "conservative" Party. As to what the GOP has to do before I can respect anyone they foist as their leader, would be to respect the rule of law, drop all of the hot-button antaginizing talking-points, reverse their love affair with corporate America--putting voters interests above those of lobbyists, reject electronic voting efforts--in favor of paper only ballots, and end all voter intimidation schemes.

When that happens, then maybe I can respect a Republican. But until Republicans change their stripes, they don't deserve to hold any office above municipal dog catcher, as far as I'm concerned.

So when Freddie boy surrounds himself with the crooks and liars who have been a part of the present lawless administration, it just sullies his integrity. He doesn't even give me the impression that he will run a campaign any different from GW's; and with the Supreme Court practically taking the lid off of ads funded by special interests, this presidential campaign is probably going to be the dirtiest, most vitriolic, we've seen in years.

I wouldn't be surprised if Freddie dropped out of Washington before the shit hit the fan, in order to make a 2008 bid; just so he would appear all lilly white--despite the fact he voted to throw the shit at the fan in the first place.

Unfortunately for this country, the electorate has proven its total lack of situational awareness as it applies to picking a President, as the somewhat dubious elections of 2000, and 2004 have shown.

I'd love to be wrong about Freddie more than anything, but I've been right about George and Dick since day one, and I find it hard to believe that Freddie will be any different--Watergate was a long time ago, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

He surrounded himself with one person? Neat trick; I just saw David Copperfield, and even he can’t pull that off. What makes you think FDT wants to ride roughshod over a law he was instrumental in having passed, especially when he’s coming from so far behind in campaign contributions? Oh, and a simple “no, I would never consider voting for a conservative “ would have saved a lot of typing and board space.

Angry American · #28 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

He surrounded himself with one person? Neat trick; I just saw David Copperfield, and even he can’t pull that off. What makes you think FDT wants to ride roughshod over a law he was instrumental in having passed, especially when he’s coming from so far behind in campaign contributions? Oh, and a simple “no, I would never consider voting for a conservative “ would have saved a lot of typing and board space.

One very noteworthy person, and I'm sure not the last.

I would consider voting for a conservative, if there were any left. Seems like they've all been brain washed.

Angry American · #29 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007

Just another kink in Freddie's pristine armor:

Quote:

Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.

Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."

Asked about the matter this week, Thompson -- who is preparing to run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination -- responded via e-mail without addressing the specific charge of being a Nixon mole: "I'm glad all of this has finally caused someone to read my Watergate book, even though it's taken them over thirty years."

The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired. Indeed, the website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee boasts that he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office." It is an image that has been solidified by Thompson's portrayal of a tough-talking prosecutor in the television series "Law and Order."

But the story of his role in the Nixon case helps put in perspective Thompson's recent stance as one of the most outspoken proponents of pardoning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Just as Thompson once staunchly defended Nixon, Thompson urged a pardon for Libby, who was convicted in March of obstructing justice in the investigation into who leaked a CIA operative's name.

Thompson declared in a June 6 radio commentary that Libby's conviction was a "shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, stopping short of a pardon.

The intensity of Thompson's remarks about Libby is reminiscent of how he initially felt about Nixon. Few Republicans were stronger believers in Nixon during the early days of Watergate.

-full story-

Again, as more information is brought to light about lilly-white Freddie, we see a man who is more like the current crop of crooks and liars. Good thing Freddie is so low in the polls.

CYDdharta · #30 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Again, as more information is brought to light about lilly-white Freddie, we see a man who is more like the current crop of crooks and liars.

Imagine that, the Boston Globe writer who wrote a “biography” of John Kerry in 2004, found a Democrat investigator who wasn’t satisfied with FDT’s Watergate examination?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Good thing Freddie is so low in the polls.

By low in the polls, do you mean the GOP frontrunner for the last month that’s tied with the Dem’s frontrunner, although with a much lower unfavorable rating? Don’t worry, he’ll get a ratings boost as soon as he officially enters the race.