Why Fred Thompson Shouldn’t Be President

The media has decided to pack in on Fred’s younger wife. They should fuck off. That isn’t even close to an issue.

There is however Fred’s fake populism brand showmanship and his lobbying work for a family-planning group:

A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

He may be pulling a Bill Clinton George W Bush Thompson on his past as a lobbyist. Taken in conjunction with that pickup truck of his, he appears to be working over his image with the same nervous industry as Romney. This is something to pay attention to, but it alone is not a reason to vote against this guy. Although I’m sure stock Republicans will find much to object to as his conservative credentials are cracked open and roasted over the next couple months.

No, the reason not to vote for this guy is simple (Trish, Pensitor Review):

Remember this ad beating the drums for war with Iraq back in 2003? As if from Cheney’s own mouth comes the final note of fear mongering: “And when people ask, ‘What has Saddam done to us?’ I ask, ‘What had the 9/11 hijackers done to us…before 9/11?’”

If Dick Cheney and George W Bush had a love clone together, the result would be Fred Thompson.

Yes, if you were afraid you would be leaving behind the shoot from the hip (and into the face) policies of the world’s worst, yet angriest, bumblers you should back Fred “The Lobbyist” Thompson for president. It’s the best way to ensure more of the same.

A Thompson candidacy would be a continuation of the current administration in both ends and means. His record speaks directly to this continuation (All American Patriots, each paragraph is a clip from the original):

In the Senate, Thompson voted in support of President Bush 99.5% of the time and with his party 92% of the time [Congressional Quarterly Voting Studies]

The same post goes on to note his staunch support for Libby, and his role in helping Roberts and Alito onto the court. When you hear about Fred Thompson, realize you are dealing with Bush Cheney. The ascendancy of his campaign is an attempt to sell us at least one more term of Bush Cheney gruel. For this reason alone, on top of everything else about the man and his record, we ought to speak up loud and clear: America ain’t buying his recycled bull.

Advertisements

15 Responses

  1. Of all the steaming horse shit, this tops them all. The rationale is totally missing. You think Bush and Cheney are looking for a successor with pride and manipulation?

    I give you credit for creativeness.

    Don Jones
    MyManFred.com

  2. Don,
    Just saying the rationale is missing doesn’t make it so. I’ve been clear. Fred’s voting record is aligned with Bush and Cheney. His scare tactics and folksy image follow the style of the Bush administration. His positions and advocacy work all suggest he will continue to work towards the same goals as Dick and George.

    That said, I was curious:
    “You think Bush and Cheney are looking for a successor with pride and manipulation?” Are you saying Bush and Cheney are using “pride and manipulation” to locate a successor, or that Bush and Cheney are trying to find a candidate who possesses both “pride and manipulation”?

  3. The RNC is working overtime trying to shape and mold Freddy into Reagan Redux, but I think at the end of the day, they will fail in a big way.

    I am not fan of either Reagan or Freddy but I am far more freaked out by the prospect of Rudy Guilani becoming president. Now there’s a man who is truly dangerous, in my view.

  4. Chris, just like they shaped Bush as Reagan’s heir apparent.

    Freddy is just as dangerous as Bush.
    Rudy would kind of add a Caligula-esque spice to the mix, but he’d be along the same lines. Perhaps a bit more arrest happy though.

  5. Just how scared are you of Fred? Try as you might, you can’t really find anything on him and you can’t stop people from supporting him. Run…….Fred……Run

  6. Kathy,
    Did you read this? Did you read my post?

    I can find plenty against the man. His uncritical support for the war in Iraq, which is making the world less safe, and killing our soldiers. The same war that is creating new terrorists in Iraq and making al qaeda stronger. There is his support for Libby, who lied to cover up the actions of Cheney and Rove, who risked national security and outed a cia agent in some perverse sense of political revenge.

    He has time and again stood with the President and against human and civil rights.

    The problem isn’t finding “anything on him”. There is lots. The problem is getting through to that segment of the population who will believe in a man no matter what he does as long as he seems to appeal to their own personal self interest. Why do you support Fred? Taxes? Do you really believe the war in Iraq is making you safer?

    What reason do you have to support him?

  7. 😆 Yes, I read your post. The terrorists have already made their statement. They will do whatever it takes to kill Americans…..here in our country. Have you ever given much thought to Al Qaeda? They are here and many are registered to vote.

    Tell me….how do you think they will vote? Democratic of course. We need another president that will protect our country, not sell out like Bill Clinton.

    Libby was a scapegoat…the democrats and their media wanted someone and he ended up being the unlucky guy. What about Sandy Berger? He stole documents and was supposed to take a lie detector test years ago. But it never happened. Just another case of a democrat getting away with criminal activity.

    You and I don’t agree……just leave it at that. But I’m not going to waste my time creating a blog that puts down democrats. Like Fred said just give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. The new congress is already well on its way. 🙂

  8. Kathy,
    Americans have made our own statement: We will not be moved by fear. I have given serious thought to al qaeda, which is one more reason our misguided war in Iraq disturbs me greatly.

    Tell me, do you think the threat of al qaeda members voting is serious?
    What possible credibility could you have as a partisan claiming they will vote for your opposition? Why should that even matter?

    As for Bill Clinton, I’d take him over Bush in a hearbeat. He’s far from perfect, but far from the complete failure Bush has been, and Fred Thompson is trying to become.

    Libby took the legal bullet for his bosses. Why do you need to pull out a “the Dems did it too” defense? Can’t the case of Libby stand on its own merit? Guess not. Frankly, whether the Dems or the Repubs break the law, I oppose it firmly. In this case, the administration broke the law and risked our national security to get back at a political opponent. Why does Fred support this? Why do you support it?

    Can you give a different reason for voting for Fred? Other than “I am afraid of terrorists”?

  9. Okay, lets get this straight. There aren’t enough Al Qaeda in Amercia to affect the vote so it’s okay that you vote with them. Don’t you see something wrong with that theory? They are voting for the party that helps their cause, not the ones that make it very difficult for them.

    I am a Tennessean, born and lived here for my entire 47 years. I voted for Fred twice and he didn’t let me or my state down. He started helping us long before running for office when he exposed the corruption of TN governor (D) Ray Blanton. He is fair, intelligent, honest and straight spoken. That is much more than you can say for any of the democrat candidates and enough for me. Also, he is a supporter of Federalism…..I don’t believe the govenment is here to do everything for everyone. Fred realizes that the tax cuts are working…… how come nobody mentions the stock market hitting all time highs? It was all over the news during the Clinton administration.

    So it’s fine for you to take shots at Libby but not for me to remind you of anything that Sandy Berger did. Okay, sounds like a typical democratic defense to me. I also oppose either party breaking the law, and as I already stated Libby was nothing more than a scapegoat. Here’s a quote from Fred for you on that:

    “This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice.

    One man and his wife and 14-year-old and 10-year-old children are bearing the brunt of a political maelstrom here that produced something that never should have come about.

    These people knew in the very beginning — the Justice Department, this Justice Department and the special counsel knew in the very beginning that the thing that was creating the controversy, who leaked Valerie Plame’s name, did not constitute a violation of the law.

    And then they knew that it — someone did leak the name. And it was Mr. Armitage. It wasn’t Scooter Libby.

    But he evidently wasn’t a designated bad guy, so they passed over that and spent the next year drilling in a dry well and finally got some inconsistencies or some failure to remember out of Mr. Libby and made a prosecution out of it and went to trial on a he-said, she-said perjury case and faulty memory, when practically every witness in the trial either had inconsistent statements, told the FBI one thing, told the grand jury something else, inconsistent between the witnesses that were presented at the case, and sometimes both.

    And yet at the end of the day, the only person that the jury got an opportunity to pass judgment on was Scooter Libby. It’s not fair. And I would do anything that I could to alleviate that.”

  10. Kathy,
    Getting it straight would be good indeed. Voting for the party that would actually fight al aqaeda, and not get mired down in iraq (and potentially iran), is the polar opposite of voting with them. It is certainly voting against their interests, which as a measure, does not look kindly upon the record of republicans the past couple years.

    The Republicans have through their misguided war with Iraq made things easier for al qaeda.

    If you are voting for him because you liked what he did for TN, that’s fine, although judging from what you think the Republicans have done for America, that assessment might be a bit off.

    Intelligent and Honest? Obama, Edwards, Richardson… basically anyone but Hillary or Biden. Each party has its candidates who long ago abandoned the straight talk express, and each has those who still honor it. Aside from Fred pretending to be folksy, and lying about his work for a family planning group, I haven’t seen much to suggest he isn’t honest. Then again, how much has his actual record been in the news?

    What Berger did was represenhsible, and I am in no way defending it. I am calling attention to the fact that in order to defend Thompson’s position on Libby, you have to resort to “Dems did it too!”. That defense doesn’t hold any water at all.

    I don’t know about in any other part of the world. You see trials we wish would happen here, and trials we can never imagine happening here all the time. I can speak to the fairness of the trial itself.

    Armitage was involved. As was Libby. But we all know that this was a Cheney Rove special, and trying to manuever around that may work in court, but it fails in the court of public opinion. Bull and corruption are very easy to smell in the Bush whitehouse. Fred Thompson may think rolling in it makes him seem like a tougher dog than he is, but it really just makes him stink all the worse.

    Nailing Libby for perjury was like nailing Capone for tax evasion. Libby is not an innocent lamb caught in the cross fire. He is a political operative who lied for his boss and got caught. Unfortunately nothing will stick, and people who outed a cia agent for political gain are going to get away with it. Fred Thompson will have helped.

  11. Hahaha … and they call us nutjobs. The four or five paid Fred Bloggers are amusing.

    It’s like they are reading from 1984. WAR IS PEACE, etc etc.

    Fred Thompson is a horrible choice for American sovereignty, security, and prosperity. The only worse choices than him are Hillary and Giuliani.

  12. Bret,
    At times it does get a bit confusing.
    I’d take Hillary over Thompson in a heartbeat. She’d be like a more conservative Bill Clinton, who would be better than a repackaged Bush anyday. Giuliani is the worst though.

  13. Hillary is just another part of the war machine, my friend. Someday, I will convince you.

  14. I suspect that Fred Thompson is being groomed by the Bush family. There’s an article out here in cyberspace somewhere that shows a fundraising letter from the Bush family (a nephew, IIRC) soliciting donations for FT’s campaign.

    But even though I’m a Ron Paul fan, I think Hillary is going to win because America won’t support anybody who openly supports the war. Sadly, I have not seen Hillary say anything about dismantling our military industrial complex, and her husband cartainly wasn’t above spreading liberty with guns.

    She’s said she envisions having troops in Iraq, and she even supports leaving the nuclear option to coerce Iran. That’s insanity. Nuking a country that has not attacked anybody yet? And that’s just the tip of it.

    She’s just more of the same. I’ll vote for Ron Paul if I have to write it on a gum wrapper and walk it to the elections board. Then when the draft comes back and the bombs start falling, I’ll cry because I wasn’t able to convince enough people it was going to happen.

  15. bret,
    Hell yes she is. But on a number of important issues,
    she is far more sensible than Thompson. When you are choosing between two monsters, the size and distribution of teeth matters. Although I suspect, and here is a key difference, that Hillary would pay a lot more attention to public opinion than Thompson ever would. She’s taken the position she has on the war as a direct result of public pressure. Thompson would react to the pressure (and does now) like Bush.

    But I’d just as soon neither get into office.

    Alexia,
    That would be an interesting article to read.
    I sure hope you are wrong about Hillary! She does seem to be doing very well in the polls though.

    She is more of the same pre-Bush. Bush has established a new level of authoritarianism that a number of candidates espouse. While I certainly want them to lose, I hope we can do better than Hillary Clinton.

    We may disagree on Ron Paul, but we agree firmly on the war and the systemic changes that need to happen to dismantle the war machine. Regardless of what happens in 2008, the anti-war movement will only get stronger.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: