Friday, June 29, 2007
Thompson says voters want honest president
By KEVIN LANDRIGANTelegraph Staff
Likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said voters want candor to come out of the 2008 election and confidence from the next president, whoever it is to be.“I think the next president is going to have to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may,’’ Thompson said during a telephone interview with The Telegraph on Thursday.The complications from the war in Iraq should teach the next leader to own up to things if they don’t go as well as planned and not to dwell on the past.“I think Americans are more than willing to acknowledge mistakes, but we are not going to be wallowing forever in our mistakes,’’ said the former Tennessee senator“When America appears to be weak or divided, that is when things become even more dangerous. We have to be mindful of that as we go forward.’’Thompson, 64, has seized the lack of enthusiasm for the 10 declared GOP candidates and surged in the polls even as he readies when to make his final, expected decision to enter the race.
source:
Veteran Takes On Chris Matthews In Coulter Debate
Not Fred Thompson related, but worth seeing. This war veteran confronts Chris Matthews for his criticism of Ann Coulter's attacks on Elizabeth Edwards. He is not defending Ann Coulter, but is asking why some of that criticism can't be shared with the Democrats who constantly attack the troops. His point is that they are elected and should be held more accountable for what they say. Credit to Chris Matthews for not running.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Fred Responds to Dem Critics
Fred Thompson respnds to Democrat's criticism of his past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCVNuSA__-g
Fred Thompson wows GOP in S.C.
By JIM MORRILL
McClatchy-Tribune
The former Tennessee senator, 64, and a star of TV's Law & Order, spoke to more than 300 South Carolina Republicans at a Columbia hotel. Invoking Ronald Reagan and what he called his party's "underlying principles," he gave many
read more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4926856.html
McClatchy-Tribune
The former Tennessee senator, 64, and a star of TV's Law & Order, spoke to more than 300 South Carolina Republicans at a Columbia hotel. Invoking Ronald Reagan and what he called his party's "underlying principles," he gave many
read more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4926856.html
The Darfur Genocide and Global Warming - by Fred Thompson
Recently, the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the root cause of the current genocide in Darfur is … global warming. Now if you've been following the tragedy of the Darfur region in the African nation of Sudan, you know how absurd that statement is.
There's not room here for even a good summary, but let me make a few points. Sudan straddles the line between Christian African and Muslim Arabic cultures, bordering Egypt and Libya on the north. Bloody regional warfare stretches back centuries but, in modern times, the country has been in pretty much of a constant state of war since the 1950s. It's safe to say that millions have died in wars that are often aimed at control of the rich oil fields in the South. Today, however, the vastly reduced African Christian population isn't even involved. Two Muslim factions, divided along racial lines, are fighting for
read more:
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=431466&SPID=15663
There's not room here for even a good summary, but let me make a few points. Sudan straddles the line between Christian African and Muslim Arabic cultures, bordering Egypt and Libya on the north. Bloody regional warfare stretches back centuries but, in modern times, the country has been in pretty much of a constant state of war since the 1950s. It's safe to say that millions have died in wars that are often aimed at control of the rich oil fields in the South. Today, however, the vastly reduced African Christian population isn't even involved. Two Muslim factions, divided along racial lines, are fighting for
read more:
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=431466&SPID=15663
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fred Thompson: "We decide who comes in."
click link below to see excerpt of speech give in South Carolina :
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/fred_thompson_on_immigration_w.html
Fred Thompson, was in South Carolina today where the Associated Press reports he got a good reception.
He got one of his best responses from the Republican audience when he said of the U.S. when talking about immigration: "And it is our home. And we get to decide who comes into our home."
Fred Thompson, was in South Carolina today where the Associated Press reports he got a good reception.
He got one of his best responses from the Republican audience when he said of the U.S. when talking about immigration: "And it is our home. And we get to decide who comes into our home."
Monday, June 25, 2007
Inhofe Says Boxer, Hillary Clinton Discussed Reining in Conservative Talk Radio Three Years Ago
By Liza Porteus
WASHINGTON — Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn't need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a "legislative fix" to curb conservative talk radio.
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not "the other day," as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night.
Boxer early Friday said the Oklahoma senator "needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked" if he thinks he heard her and Clinton having a conversation about talk radio.
After Inhofe clarified his remarks, Boxer's spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, added:
"Perhaps he should have his memory checked too. I don't know anyone who thinks three years ago was 'the other day.'"
In an interview with FOX News Friday afternoon, Inhofe asserted that the conversation between Clinton and Boxer took place three years ago, and he brings it up regularly in talking about market-driven media.
"I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times," the Oklahoma Republican told FOXNews.com. "I have it memorized ... I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction."
read entire story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html
WASHINGTON — Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn't need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a "legislative fix" to curb conservative talk radio.
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not "the other day," as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night.
Boxer early Friday said the Oklahoma senator "needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked" if he thinks he heard her and Clinton having a conversation about talk radio.
After Inhofe clarified his remarks, Boxer's spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, added:
"Perhaps he should have his memory checked too. I don't know anyone who thinks three years ago was 'the other day.'"
In an interview with FOX News Friday afternoon, Inhofe asserted that the conversation between Clinton and Boxer took place three years ago, and he brings it up regularly in talking about market-driven media.
"I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times," the Oklahoma Republican told FOXNews.com. "I have it memorized ... I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction."
read entire story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html
You’re Listening to Radio Free Congress
Fred Thompson discusses the Fairness Doctrine in light of Congressional efforts to revive and use it to diminish the impact of talk radio
I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
by Fred Dalton Thompson on 5/17/2007 5:12:34 PM
source: http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663
I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
by Fred Dalton Thompson on 5/17/2007 5:12:34 PM
source: http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Union Dues and Secret Ballots by Fred Thompson
Union Dues and Secret Ballots By Fred Thompson
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
There was a time in America when local governments and employers could take advantage of powerless workers. Unions formed as a result. Nowadays, government generally sides with, instead of against, unions. The single biggest advantage unions have, of course, is collective bargaining rights – the right to negotiate for whole groups of employees.
Even with these advantages, however, unions have been losing membership in every sector but government -- which is another story. In the last 25 or so years, private sector union membership has dropped from about 19 percent to under 8 percent today. Most decertification votes, giving workers the chance to end union representation, go against the unions.
One reason unions have alienated potential members is that they often focus on politics instead of supporting their members. Last week, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a Washington state teachers union that had been spending dues on political activities -- against the wishes of individual teachers. Some of those who protested the use of the funds weren't even union members but had to pay to keep their teachers' jobs.
This week, though, the unions are going to try something that could reverse their long decline. The Senate will vote on a measure the House has already passed that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize. This would allow union officials to visit individual workers separately to persuade them to sign a card in favor of the union. Given the rather colorful history of some labor unions, it’s not hard to understand why so many people think this is a very bad idea.
Nevertheless, the current congress may in fact pass it. Unions give a lot of their members'-- and nonmembers'-- dues to political candidates, and they're really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of congress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services -- the office that investigates illegalities by unions.
Let me restate the obvious. In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.
Excerpts from commentary aired on ABCRadio.com on June 19, 2007
I've Got a Crush on Fred Thompson's Politics
You've heard about the Obama crush video, now here's the I've Got a Crush on Fred Thompson's Politics http://www.jameskole.com/
Friday, June 22, 2007
A Federalist Approach to Malpractice Abuse by: Fred Thompson
click http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html to listen to audio commentary.
Out-of-control medical malpractice lawsuits have been a problem in many parts of the country for a long time. Malpractice insurance costs can be driven so high, that doctors and insurance companies flee to more reasonable business climates. With too few doctors, it’s the patients who suffer the most.
In the past, those who want to solve this problem have tended to ignore our Federalist tradition. They've driven right past their state houses to their airports and flown to Washington to ask for national legal remedies. Fortunately, now we're seeing that states can take effective action themselves.
Only a few years ago, Texas was losing doctors fast. Rising malpractice insurance rates were fueling what analysts called a crisis. In some parts of the state, emergency wards were closing and residents were facing long trips for even basic medical care. The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.
Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.
At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent,
So many doctors have now requested Texas medical licenses that thousands are backlogged and an emergency appropriations was passed to help the Texas Medical Board speed up their processing. Now, other states are considering similar legislation to stop the loss of their own doctors to Texas. I consider this a small but important victory for the principles of Federalism.
source: ABC Radio Networks
Out-of-control medical malpractice lawsuits have been a problem in many parts of the country for a long time. Malpractice insurance costs can be driven so high, that doctors and insurance companies flee to more reasonable business climates. With too few doctors, it’s the patients who suffer the most.
In the past, those who want to solve this problem have tended to ignore our Federalist tradition. They've driven right past their state houses to their airports and flown to Washington to ask for national legal remedies. Fortunately, now we're seeing that states can take effective action themselves.
Only a few years ago, Texas was losing doctors fast. Rising malpractice insurance rates were fueling what analysts called a crisis. In some parts of the state, emergency wards were closing and residents were facing long trips for even basic medical care. The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.
Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.
At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent,
So many doctors have now requested Texas medical licenses that thousands are backlogged and an emergency appropriations was passed to help the Texas Medical Board speed up their processing. Now, other states are considering similar legislation to stop the loss of their own doctors to Texas. I consider this a small but important victory for the principles of Federalism.
source: ABC Radio Networks
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Join with the I'm With Fred Group at Facebook
join the I'm With Fred group at Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2356633240
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2356633240
Good News about CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) - by: Fred Thompson
Good News about CAIR
Click http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html to launch podcast player
I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.
For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.
Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.
CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.
Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?
CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.
::Back::posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 6/20/2007 5:03:11 PM
Click http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html to launch podcast player
I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.
For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.
Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.
CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.
Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?
CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.
::Back::posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 6/20/2007 5:03:11 PM
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Sign up for Fred Thompson's Twitter Feed
Want to receive messages from both the Thompson team and from Fred Thompson himself? Read the always updated Twitter feed on the left side of this page or follow Fred at http://twitter.com/fredthompson You don't need an account, but if you set one up, you can add him as a friend.
Fred has been Twittering from England, and the Thompson team is adding news and information, as well.
Fred has been Twittering from England, and the Thompson team is adding news and information, as well.
Fred’s Remarks to The Policy Exchange in London
Fred’s remarks to The Policy Exchange as prepared for delivery on June 19, 2007:
Thank you very much. Charles Moore, Anthony Browne, Dean Godson, distinguished guests: I appreciate the cordial welcome to London. I always look forward to visiting the United Kingdom, and this time around I couldn’t ask for a better host than the Policy Exchange.
We have a few policies back home that we’d like to exchange, and think tanks like this are the place to come. After just five years, the Policy Exchange ranks among the best, and the fine reputation of your work has reached Washington as well. I congratulate all of you, and I thank you for the hospitality.
to see entire speech, click http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/fdt-speech-to-the-policy-exchange-in-london/
Thank you very much. Charles Moore, Anthony Browne, Dean Godson, distinguished guests: I appreciate the cordial welcome to London. I always look forward to visiting the United Kingdom, and this time around I couldn’t ask for a better host than the Policy Exchange.
We have a few policies back home that we’d like to exchange, and think tanks like this are the place to come. After just five years, the Policy Exchange ranks among the best, and the fine reputation of your work has reached Washington as well. I congratulate all of you, and I thank you for the hospitality.
to see entire speech, click http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/fdt-speech-to-the-policy-exchange-in-london/
Fred Thompson on Palestinians, Iran & Israel
Terrorized
By Fred Thompson
Click http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=6&y=2007 for the audio commentary this transcript is based on.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego — and bragged about it?
I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel’s restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy’s side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community. Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.I’m beginning to wonder how much longer this vicious plot will work though. International sympathy for Palestinians has diminished as the same Islamofascist extremists have brought havoc to Madrid, Bali, Somalia, London and elsewhere. More importantly, Israelis themselves are suffering so badly, they may be on the verge of losing their sympathy for the people who have sworn to kill them.Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions. The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven’t used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict. That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel “wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too. If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS
By Fred Thompson
Click http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=6&y=2007 for the audio commentary this transcript is based on.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego — and bragged about it?
I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel’s restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy’s side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community. Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.I’m beginning to wonder how much longer this vicious plot will work though. International sympathy for Palestinians has diminished as the same Islamofascist extremists have brought havoc to Madrid, Bali, Somalia, London and elsewhere. More importantly, Israelis themselves are suffering so badly, they may be on the verge of losing their sympathy for the people who have sworn to kill them.Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions. The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven’t used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict. That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel “wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too. If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS
Monday, June 18, 2007
Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking
June 16, 2007
Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking
By Ray Robison
Fred Thompson is a small town guy who made it from the agricultural communes of south-central Tennessee to Capitol Hill and our TV sets. And while we admire the accomplishments of this distinguished lawyer, Senator and actor, we admire the man even more for seeming to remain grounded to his roots.
Faced with a media establishment that has heightened its opposition to presenting news that makes Republicans look good, Fred Thompson has that rare and invaluable quality of speaking directly to ordinary Americans, saying what needs to be said.
He has ties to Hollywood but is not of Hollywood, which adds legitimacy to his insider knowledge of our media based culture. He is giving voice to that which vexes many of us, that liberal politicians and media elitists increase the risk to this country by downplaying the tyrannical and terrorist enemy in order to win political power. Pointing this out is a talent that has long failed President Bush.
Can anybody imagine President Bush saying what Fred Thompson did a few days ago?
"I listen to the Democratic congressional leaders and I hear them talking about how many (House and Senate) seats they're going to pick up because of this war.... I listened to one of their presidential candidates talk about that this is a phony war, the war on terror. This is what passes for policy today in the Democratic Party."
Can anybody imagine President Bush telling Michael Moore so publicly that the political system he admires in Cuba is nothing but a brutal tyranny? Thompson talked about Castro's abysmal treatment of Cuban journalists, a direct shot at the hypocrisy of the "video-journalist" Moore. The fact that Moore had no memorable response says it all; Thompson scored a direct hit and everybody knew it.
Many of us who loathe Michael Moore cheered silently. Thompson has slyly asserted himself as the easy going but tough guy of the right who also happens to be media savvy, more John Wayne than Reagan. And oddly enough in American politics, it all strikes many of us as genuine.
We never hear this type of trench fighting from the Bush administration anymore, unless it is to imply its' own supporters are haters for wanting to stop an egregiously flawed immigration bill. The same can be said for McCain who used to straight talk us, but for some time has talked only straight to the liberal media talking points in a vain attempt to curry favor. As Fred might say, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know that the media was going to use and abuse McCain as soon as it got what it wanted from him, an anti-Republican stance.
We want a President who will play take on, or better yet make irrelevant the liberal media and its' anti-American leanings. Defeat it, rather than to win it over, an impossible task for any Republican.
Many of us have not sat idly while major American news misrepresents everything from our war efforts to a make-believe plot to out a "covert" CIA agent. Again and again this administration has failed to support those who support it by defending itself. Instead it gives up and accommodates its opponents.
In the war of ideas, this White House long ago cut and run. Why didn't Powell, a former team member, identify Armitage as the leaker and stop the entire Plame non-scandal before it got started? Didn't President Bush have the same information? Why did they let this lie go unchallenged day after day?
What many of us see in Thompson is a man who will stand by his principles, someone we hope won't pull the rug out from under his supporters' feet to support Ted Kennedy. We see in Thompson a man who understands that public perception matters even as he knows that reality matters more. He understands that the Islamic extremist enemy knows how to use our own values against us. He knows the bulk of American media is all too happy to provide a conduit for that propaganda if it supports the success of liberals over conservatives.
Some believe that Thompson's conservative credentials are damaged by his support of McCain-Feingold. Maybe so, but in this era of Jack Abramoff, tighter control on political money is not an entirely discredited notion. In truth, both Thompson and McCain acknowledged the dangers for corruption before the scandals that cost the GOP so much ion the past election.
George is coy about a statement Thompson made that is clearly a reference to suicide bombers like the 9/11 attackers which is part of a broader statement about illegal immigration. While Will just can't quite figure it out (so he warns you not to try this at home) it is really not a complicated position. Keeping out all illegal immigrants will reduce the chances of terrorists operating in this country.
Some critics say Thomson, who hasn't even declared yet, is devoid of ideas. Winning in Iraq is a good idea that doesn't need to be proposed, but does need constant reinforcement with the American public. Maybe we need a President who will flood the media with subject matter experts directly involved in the war effort (God forbid we are still suffering such losses by the next Presidency) instead of giving the most biased liberal reporters special access to the military's secret programs.
Do we really need a big idea for immigration or do we need to just enforce the laws we have? Many of the economic policies of the President have had spectacular success and just need some one to protect them against a socialist onslaught.
Fred Thompson doesn't need big ideas; he only has to have the courage to reap the ones that President Bush planted in rugged, arid, cold ground and which he failed to protect from a biased media culture.
Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam's support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism
Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking
By Ray Robison
Fred Thompson is a small town guy who made it from the agricultural communes of south-central Tennessee to Capitol Hill and our TV sets. And while we admire the accomplishments of this distinguished lawyer, Senator and actor, we admire the man even more for seeming to remain grounded to his roots.
Faced with a media establishment that has heightened its opposition to presenting news that makes Republicans look good, Fred Thompson has that rare and invaluable quality of speaking directly to ordinary Americans, saying what needs to be said.
He has ties to Hollywood but is not of Hollywood, which adds legitimacy to his insider knowledge of our media based culture. He is giving voice to that which vexes many of us, that liberal politicians and media elitists increase the risk to this country by downplaying the tyrannical and terrorist enemy in order to win political power. Pointing this out is a talent that has long failed President Bush.
Can anybody imagine President Bush saying what Fred Thompson did a few days ago?
"I listen to the Democratic congressional leaders and I hear them talking about how many (House and Senate) seats they're going to pick up because of this war.... I listened to one of their presidential candidates talk about that this is a phony war, the war on terror. This is what passes for policy today in the Democratic Party."
Can anybody imagine President Bush telling Michael Moore so publicly that the political system he admires in Cuba is nothing but a brutal tyranny? Thompson talked about Castro's abysmal treatment of Cuban journalists, a direct shot at the hypocrisy of the "video-journalist" Moore. The fact that Moore had no memorable response says it all; Thompson scored a direct hit and everybody knew it.
Many of us who loathe Michael Moore cheered silently. Thompson has slyly asserted himself as the easy going but tough guy of the right who also happens to be media savvy, more John Wayne than Reagan. And oddly enough in American politics, it all strikes many of us as genuine.
We never hear this type of trench fighting from the Bush administration anymore, unless it is to imply its' own supporters are haters for wanting to stop an egregiously flawed immigration bill. The same can be said for McCain who used to straight talk us, but for some time has talked only straight to the liberal media talking points in a vain attempt to curry favor. As Fred might say, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know that the media was going to use and abuse McCain as soon as it got what it wanted from him, an anti-Republican stance.
We want a President who will play take on, or better yet make irrelevant the liberal media and its' anti-American leanings. Defeat it, rather than to win it over, an impossible task for any Republican.
Many of us have not sat idly while major American news misrepresents everything from our war efforts to a make-believe plot to out a "covert" CIA agent. Again and again this administration has failed to support those who support it by defending itself. Instead it gives up and accommodates its opponents.
In the war of ideas, this White House long ago cut and run. Why didn't Powell, a former team member, identify Armitage as the leaker and stop the entire Plame non-scandal before it got started? Didn't President Bush have the same information? Why did they let this lie go unchallenged day after day?
What many of us see in Thompson is a man who will stand by his principles, someone we hope won't pull the rug out from under his supporters' feet to support Ted Kennedy. We see in Thompson a man who understands that public perception matters even as he knows that reality matters more. He understands that the Islamic extremist enemy knows how to use our own values against us. He knows the bulk of American media is all too happy to provide a conduit for that propaganda if it supports the success of liberals over conservatives.
Some believe that Thompson's conservative credentials are damaged by his support of McCain-Feingold. Maybe so, but in this era of Jack Abramoff, tighter control on political money is not an entirely discredited notion. In truth, both Thompson and McCain acknowledged the dangers for corruption before the scandals that cost the GOP so much ion the past election.
George is coy about a statement Thompson made that is clearly a reference to suicide bombers like the 9/11 attackers which is part of a broader statement about illegal immigration. While Will just can't quite figure it out (so he warns you not to try this at home) it is really not a complicated position. Keeping out all illegal immigrants will reduce the chances of terrorists operating in this country.
Some critics say Thomson, who hasn't even declared yet, is devoid of ideas. Winning in Iraq is a good idea that doesn't need to be proposed, but does need constant reinforcement with the American public. Maybe we need a President who will flood the media with subject matter experts directly involved in the war effort (God forbid we are still suffering such losses by the next Presidency) instead of giving the most biased liberal reporters special access to the military's secret programs.
Do we really need a big idea for immigration or do we need to just enforce the laws we have? Many of the economic policies of the President have had spectacular success and just need some one to protect them against a socialist onslaught.
Fred Thompson doesn't need big ideas; he only has to have the courage to reap the ones that President Bush planted in rugged, arid, cold ground and which he failed to protect from a biased media culture.
Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam's support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Fred Thompson Picks Up Endorsement From Former New York Senator over Rudy Guliani
source: NY NY1 News
Former New York Senator Al D'Amato says Fred Thompson is his pick for the White House. Speaking on “Inside City Hall’s” weekly "Wise Guy's" roundtable Tuesday night, D’Amato said the former Tennessee Republican senator and “Law and Order” star is the man to lead the country. "I think he can provide America with the kind of leadership that the people desperately need and that this country needs,” said D’Amato. “And you know, if America doesn't have a leader that the world can look up to, the world is in trouble."
Former New York Senator Al D'Amato says Fred Thompson is his pick for the White House. Speaking on “Inside City Hall’s” weekly "Wise Guy's" roundtable Tuesday night, D’Amato said the former Tennessee Republican senator and “Law and Order” star is the man to lead the country. "I think he can provide America with the kind of leadership that the people desperately need and that this country needs,” said D’Amato. “And you know, if America doesn't have a leader that the world can look up to, the world is in trouble."
Friday, June 15, 2007
Put your money where your mouth is. Fred Thompson's "Stock" is the Highest on Intrade.com
Intrade, is The Prediction Market where you can buy and sell "shares" in financial, political, weather and other important subjects. More than a poll because you have to put your money where your mouth is. Fred Thompson shares are selling for 30.9 compared to Guliani shares selling for 28 for the 2008 Republican nominee. Visit http://www.intrade.com/ to check out what folks are putting their money on.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Democrat National Committee Closes Blog Comments After Discovering Members Agree With Thompson
Free speech is NOT alive and well within the Democrat Party. The DNC had to close the comment section on their blog post regarding Fred Thompson. In an attempt to bash Thompson, the DNC posted The Fred Thompson “Dummies Guide to Diplomacy”. Go here http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/dnc-closes-blog-comments-after-discovering-members-agree-with-thompson Check out some of these excerpts from comments from DNC blog visitors. Looks like the Reagan Democrats might feel right at home with Thompson –
Here are the quotes that the Democrats posted that they think is a Fred Thompson bash. I'll just change the title to "A Realistic View of International Hypocrites" Proud to post this on a pro-Fred blog. Comment how you like, I won't shut the comments down.
"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."
Here are the quotes that the Democrats posted that they think is a Fred Thompson bash. I'll just change the title to "A Realistic View of International Hypocrites" Proud to post this on a pro-Fred blog. Comment how you like, I won't shut the comments down.
"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
If you Love the Environment, Buy a Hummer, not Prius
Two paragraphs in this article say it all.
"Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
To find out why, read the article.
March 7, 2007 Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental DamageBy Chris DemorroStaff Writer
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer. Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
National Poll: Giuliani 24% Thompson 24%
Rasmussen Reports
June 12, 2007
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has to share his spot atop the field of Republican Presidential hopefuls this week. The newest face in the race, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, is now tied with Giuliani. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds each man earning support from 24% of likely Republican Primary voters. A week ago, Giuliani had a six percentage point lead over Thompson, 23% to 17%.
To read this atrticle, click the link below. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
June 12, 2007
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has to share his spot atop the field of Republican Presidential hopefuls this week. The newest face in the race, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, is now tied with Giuliani. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds each man earning support from 24% of likely Republican Primary voters. A week ago, Giuliani had a six percentage point lead over Thompson, 23% to 17%.
To read this atrticle, click the link below. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
Monday, June 11, 2007
Poll puts Fred Thompson just behind Giuliani in GOP race
The LA Times, ( Yeah, I read the LA Times) discounts Fred Thompson's good showing in a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll, because, according to them, "Thompson is just starting to introduce himself. He has never endured the rigors of a high-profile campaign and has not parried with rivals in debates, as Giuliani and nine other Republicans have three times this spring."
It will be interesting to see which way the polls go after his first debate. People are ready for a straight talker, but will the debate audience recieve it right off the bat? It may be a shock to some to see this guy who has been a politician and an actor, talk like neither. After folks see that this is Fred Thompson and he is consistent in what he says, he will surge in the polls. First place is a hard place to be, so don't be dissapointed if Fred doesn't rise to the top as quickly as you'd like. As long as he's first in the primaries.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer2:52 PM PDT, June 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Republicans antsy for a conservative standard-bearer in the presidential race have begun to rally behind Fred Thompson, propelling the former Tennessee senator to within hailing distance of the lead for the party's nomination, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani holds first place in the survey, with support from 27% of the Republicans and independents who said they planned to vote in the party's 2008 primaries.But Thompson, an actor who plays a prosecutor on NBC's "Law and Order," polled 21%. Indications are he will join the race within the next month.The two other major GOP contenders, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have fallen well short of the leaders and are in a battle for third place. McCain was backed by 12% of those polled, Romney by 10%. The rest of the crowded field is mired in single digits.
Overall, the survey underscored the unsettled nature of the Republican contest, with voters splitting roughly along ideological lines.Giuliani, whose views on abortion, gay rights and guns are to the left of many in his party, has built a wide base among moderates and independents, while Thompson has drawn conservatives, particularly among the religious right.That dynamic, however, could quickly change. Giuliani for months has faced a swarm of media scrutiny of his weak spots yet has kept his lead in national polls intact, if somewhat diminished.Thompson, by contrast, is just starting to introduce himself. He has never endured the rigors of a high-profile campaign and has not parried with rivals in debates, as Giuliani and nine other Republicans have three times this spring.Thompson "has this allure, but he hasn't been tested yet," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, who conducted the survey. "He has gotten a free ride so far."The poll of 1,056 registered voters was conducted by telephone Thursday through Sunday. Republican-leaning voters totaled 408; Democratic ones numbered 449. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for all voters, and plus or minus 5 points for voters in each primary.
It will be interesting to see which way the polls go after his first debate. People are ready for a straight talker, but will the debate audience recieve it right off the bat? It may be a shock to some to see this guy who has been a politician and an actor, talk like neither. After folks see that this is Fred Thompson and he is consistent in what he says, he will surge in the polls. First place is a hard place to be, so don't be dissapointed if Fred doesn't rise to the top as quickly as you'd like. As long as he's first in the primaries.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer2:52 PM PDT, June 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Republicans antsy for a conservative standard-bearer in the presidential race have begun to rally behind Fred Thompson, propelling the former Tennessee senator to within hailing distance of the lead for the party's nomination, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani holds first place in the survey, with support from 27% of the Republicans and independents who said they planned to vote in the party's 2008 primaries.But Thompson, an actor who plays a prosecutor on NBC's "Law and Order," polled 21%. Indications are he will join the race within the next month.The two other major GOP contenders, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have fallen well short of the leaders and are in a battle for third place. McCain was backed by 12% of those polled, Romney by 10%. The rest of the crowded field is mired in single digits.
Overall, the survey underscored the unsettled nature of the Republican contest, with voters splitting roughly along ideological lines.Giuliani, whose views on abortion, gay rights and guns are to the left of many in his party, has built a wide base among moderates and independents, while Thompson has drawn conservatives, particularly among the religious right.That dynamic, however, could quickly change. Giuliani for months has faced a swarm of media scrutiny of his weak spots yet has kept his lead in national polls intact, if somewhat diminished.Thompson, by contrast, is just starting to introduce himself. He has never endured the rigors of a high-profile campaign and has not parried with rivals in debates, as Giuliani and nine other Republicans have three times this spring.Thompson "has this allure, but he hasn't been tested yet," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, who conducted the survey. "He has gotten a free ride so far."The poll of 1,056 registered voters was conducted by telephone Thursday through Sunday. Republican-leaning voters totaled 408; Democratic ones numbered 449. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for all voters, and plus or minus 5 points for voters in each primary.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Southern Exposure
The Kennedy/Mccain Immigration Reform Bill isn't getting through Congress with the ease some thought it would. It's quite possible that nothing will be done by this administration and might be passed on to the next President. This is not a bad thing. Just a reminder on how Fred Thompson feels on the subject, here is a transcipt from Fred Thompson's commentary on Paul Harvey.
Southern Exposure
By Fred Thompson
We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.
It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?
Southern Exposure
By Fred Thompson
We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.
It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Youtube4Fred
Announcing YouTube4Fred - because the most powerful tool in politics is the voice of the voter.
The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee is asking you join us and put your voice into action with "YouTube4Fred!
Tell America in your own words why we need former Senator Fred Thompson as our next President.
Politicians, pundits and pollsters have had their say – now its your turn!
Prepare a personal digital video clip telling why you want to see Fred Thompson run for President, upload it to YouTube through our "YourTube4Fred" page at http://www.fred08.com/.
Each week http://www.fred08.com/ will highlight the top two or three clips. We will link them to our Front Page so that thousands other supporters and members of the media can better understand why Fred Thompson needs to join the 2008 presidential campaign.
This breaks new ground in grassroots politics and gives us a voice we have never had before – Don’t miss your chance to be heard!
The following simple instructions guide you through the process.
Video Format:
Start by stating your First Name and the State you are from.
Take approximately 30 seconds to tell America why you think Senator Fred Thompson should run for president.
Instructions:
Using a webcam or digital video camera, tell why you want Fred Thompson to run for President.
Transfer video to your computer.
Save the video in any of the following formats: .WMV, .AVI, .MOV, and .MPG.
Create a Youtube account.
Follow the instructions to upload video.
When prompted, tag the video "Fred Thompson", "Draft", "2008", "yourtube4fred"
Email the Draft Committee; mailto:youtube@fred08.com and tell us the URL so we can link to it.
Send an email to your friends encouraging them to participate
See you on YouTube4Fred!
The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee is asking you join us and put your voice into action with "YouTube4Fred!
Tell America in your own words why we need former Senator Fred Thompson as our next President.
Politicians, pundits and pollsters have had their say – now its your turn!
Prepare a personal digital video clip telling why you want to see Fred Thompson run for President, upload it to YouTube through our "YourTube4Fred" page at http://www.fred08.com/.
Each week http://www.fred08.com/ will highlight the top two or three clips. We will link them to our Front Page so that thousands other supporters and members of the media can better understand why Fred Thompson needs to join the 2008 presidential campaign.
This breaks new ground in grassroots politics and gives us a voice we have never had before – Don’t miss your chance to be heard!
The following simple instructions guide you through the process.
Video Format:
Start by stating your First Name and the State you are from.
Take approximately 30 seconds to tell America why you think Senator Fred Thompson should run for president.
Instructions:
Using a webcam or digital video camera, tell why you want Fred Thompson to run for President.
Transfer video to your computer.
Save the video in any of the following formats: .WMV, .AVI, .MOV, and .MPG.
Create a Youtube account.
Follow the instructions to upload video.
When prompted, tag the video "Fred Thompson", "Draft", "2008", "yourtube4fred"
Email the Draft Committee; mailto:youtube@fred08.com and tell us the URL so we can link to it.
Send an email to your friends encouraging them to participate
See you on YouTube4Fred!
Friday, June 8, 2007
Fred Thompson to make first trip after forming presidential committee
COLUMBIA, SC (AP) - In advance of an announcement of his presidential bid, Fred Thompson is scheduling a visit to South Carolina.
State Senator Larry Grooms is helping organize Thompson's efforts in South Carolina and says the former US senator from Tennessee will visit the state for a June 27th state GOP fundraising event.
That's about a week before Thompson reportedly will make his presidential bid official.
State GOP Chairman Katon Dawson said at least 200 people are expected for the lunchtime event and they'll pay a minimum of $50 each. Dawson says that money will be used for state elections in 2008.
State Senator Larry Grooms is helping organize Thompson's efforts in South Carolina and says the former US senator from Tennessee will visit the state for a June 27th state GOP fundraising event.
That's about a week before Thompson reportedly will make his presidential bid official.
State GOP Chairman Katon Dawson said at least 200 people are expected for the lunchtime event and they'll pay a minimum of $50 each. Dawson says that money will be used for state elections in 2008.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
