FRED THOMPSON MAKING STRONG SHOWING IN POLLS
While polls are something that can be manipulated, certain situations such as the polling for the Presidential race with the large number of candidates in the current field can and do give a very interesting perspective of the pulse of the public.With the large number of candidates running the possible manipulation of the polls under the usual, "scientific, " scrutiny is highly unlikely since the only real question in these particular polls that is asked is , "who do you support for President in 2008." Or any number of variations of that question.
What has made the GOP polling so interesting and telling is that while Giuliani, McCain and Romney the top tier candidates have been in the race in one form or another since the first of the year or before, Fred Thompson who is still un-announced is not only in the top tier but second in the latest Rasmussen poll and third in the latest Associated Press Poll.
There has been much talk of a general , "ho hum, " attitude with the current field of GOP candidates and the emergence of Thompson in just announcing his exploratory committee and the strong showing that he is having among Republican and especially conservative voters has proven that the GOP field has been lacking a candidate that the base and much of the rest of the Party can truly get behind.
This aspect coupled with the top tier of candidates having many positions on the issues that are not conservative is much of the reason that Thompson has started the process of become a candidate. His conservative ideals and strong positions on the issue is causing conservatives whether members of the GOP, Independents or even conservative Democrats to sit up and take notice of Thompson.
When President Reagan ran in the 80's one of the reasons he was elected with such a wide margin in both the 1980 and 84 election was because of his conservative appeal which crossed party affiliation and began the conservative revolution that became the basis of the Republican Party for nearly 20 years. The drift from this revolution is why many believe that the GOP has not only lost its way politically but why they find themselves in the minority in Congress.
Thompson offers a return to the conservative platform that made the GOP the viable and strong political party that swept the Congress in 1994. This same conservatism was why Reagan was elected to two terms. Thompson again brings to his candidacy the conservatism that the GOP has drifted from and with the strong showing has a very real shot at the nomination.
His nomination and/or a continued strong showing will force the GOP to stand up and take notice of the conservative values and policy that made the party the majority and elected three out of the last four President's. Either way the conservative appeal that Thompson brings to the 2008 Presidential race is once again showing as it did with Reagan in 1980 that conservative values and positions on the issues are strong and a force whether Red State or Blue!
Ken Taylor
Marie's Two Cents posting of Thompson You Tube Campaign
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:43 AM
23 Comments:
I'm turning into a Fred-head. I found myself in sync with the majority of my views. From abortion to the War on Terror, he displays reason. Not to mention he doesn't come accross desperate and willing to do what it takes to win. This in direct contrast with the Democrats who pander and GOPs who can't collectively find their way.
When in doubt, republicans, pick the famous guy (with the stern Daddy voice, who's opinions over the years would make a pretzel look straight.)
And then there's his lifestyle. No wonder he's waiting till the last minute to throw his hat in. That, and he's a coward. He'd rather go up against 3 than 10. You guys are suckers.
You guys can't even tell the truth when you rail against Hollywood. That's the first place you turn when you're in trouble. It's becoming more obvious. F. Thompson is just another example of that.
I agree with you, Ken. I'm placing my bets on Fred too, or I would if I were the betting sort, which I'm not, not even if it's a sure thing. I do think he could be the next Reagan, or at least as close to him as we can ever get. Reagan really broke the mold. I'll be very happy when he finally makes it official! :)
I see your resident troll mudslinger got into the act.
If that ignorant dolt is slamming Thompson it only makes me love him more.
And, God willing, we can have 8 years of a Thompson Administration to ram down that silly fool's throat every day!
I like Fred because he believes in everything I believe in. He doesnt have to be on Law and Order to get my vote.
We dont have to sell out or settle when it comes to Fred, he's everything we want all rolled into one :-)
Obob, I heard that term the other day and I like it "Fred Head" lol
Marie - you don't even know what he believes in. This guys is a flip-flopper extrordinaire!
You guys just like him because of a persona. (Look it up.) He's famous and he's got this "strict daddy" voice. Man you guys are just suckers...go Hollywood!
It's called "acting."
Mudkitty, unlike most of the follow the leader liberals, we conservatives research before we choose.
Thompson IS a conservative and his popularity with the GOP and conservatives as a whole in because we KNOW how he stands and have looked at his policy statements and listened to him on the issue.
We have researched his record and know he follows the same philosophy as we believe and as Reagan stood for.
That is why we compare him to Reagan. We don't follow blindly as you are insinuating nor do we pick him because he is articulate and has a , "persona." ( Which is a defination that any moron knows so get off your high horse!)
Fred will make a good leader and a strong candidate. His showing in the polls reflects that conservatives see and understand a true conservative when we see one. Not just lambs follwing a shephard.
When you point a finger remember you have three more pointing back at you. Look in the mirror and listen to the party line and typical liberal talking points that you use here regularly before you start accusing real thinkers of following your poor, "example!"
Obob,
Here ya go, we are all officially FredHeads lol
FredHeads.org
Kicks Mudkitty across the room
Then you know that Thompson doesn't want to criminalize abortion. Right?
If you guys seriously did do your research, instead of just swooning over his Hollywood glamor, then you'd offer something other than just your opinion to back up what you say. You guys know next to nothing about Thompson. But you're soon to find out. Hang on to your hats.
Republican men are so subject-able to man-crushes. It's really cute. You guys can't point to a single true accomplishment, other than his getting elected to the senate, and his being a lawyer (which you guys claim to hate - lawyers, remember gang? You republicans hate lawyers.)
Oh yeah, and he's an actor with a deep voice.
And for all that, you think he's qualified to be the President of the United States.
You who supported Bush.
Just so you know, Thompson has never run anything other than his own self-interested career in his whole life.
If he's really serious about serving his country, rather than just grandstanding for dramatic effect, don't you think he should throw his hat in now, rather than dick around?
But I predict, you all will drink the koolaid.
"You guys can't point to a single true accomplishment, other than his getting elected to the senate, and his being a lawyer"
Sounds just like Shitlary and Obama-sama.
Well I really hate to bust your little bubbles around here but perhaps it would be a good idea to read this little tidbit of a letter sent to the RNC chairman today from former CIA veterans who actually do know a lot more about what went down with the WH and it's drumbeat for war and one of their own agents. I know this is painful but you can't wander around with blinders on forever.
**********************************
CIA Veterans Write to RNC of Their Concern Over Republican Threat to Rule of Law
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-06-13 18:49. Media
13 June 2007
The Honorable Mel Martinez
General Chairman
The Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
As former intelligence officers—most of us have served the United States in undercover positions—we are saddened and appalled by the recent public comments of former Senator Fred Thompson, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Governor Mitt Romney—one a potential candidate and the other two declared candidates for the Republican nomination for President--with respect to the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby. These men misrepresent the case against Mr. Libby and call into question the integrity of a respected Federal Judge and U.S. attorney. Their positions with respect to the just and fair punishment meted out to Mr. Libby raise serious questions about their commitment to the rule of law free of partisan bias.
We are particularly concerned by the recent speech by Fred Thompson, who declared:
As you may recall, for some inexplicable reason, the CIA sent the husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. She had suggested it. He came back to the U.S. and proceeded to publicly blast the administration. Naturally, everyone wanted to know “who is this guy?” and “why was he sent to Niger?” Just as naturally, the fact that he was married to Valerie Plame at the CIA was leaked.
Having virtually guaranteed that Ms. Plame’s identity would be ultimately disclosed by using her, shall we say, “politically active” husband, the CIA then demanded that this leak of her name be investigated by the Justice Department for a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever — a status even the Attorney General does not have.
The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody — the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a “covered person” under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.
Furthermore, Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plames’s name and it wasn’t Scooter Libby. But the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special
Counsel spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything. Finally he came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby, who had been up to his ears studying National Intelligence Estimates. But he worked for Dick Cheney, so that apparently was enough for the special counsel.
The factual errors in Mr. Thompson’s statement are almost as egregious as his partisan view that perjury and obstruction of justice are not serious crimes. For example, Thompson states that there is something implausible about sending Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. In fact, Ambassador Wilson was uniquely qualified for the mission. Having served as the acting Ambassador in Iraq and faced down Saddam Hussein, Ambassador Wilson also was the Director of Africa in the National Security Council and had served as an Ambassador in west Africa and monitored the uranium mining activity of the country where he was stationed.
Former Senator Thompson persists with the lie that there was no “violation” of the intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). But his claim is debunked by Federal Judge Reginald Walton and Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who, after reviewing the classified personnel file of Valerie Plame Wilson, stated that she was in fact covered by the IIPA when Robert Novak printed her name in July of 2003.
It also is important to correct the record that Valerie Wilson did not suggest sending her husband to Niger. She responded to an inquiry from her supervisor and provided a memo laying out his capabilities. The decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger was made by a senior official in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA. Fred Thompson also is factually wrong by claiming that Joe Wilson returned from the trip, “and proceeded to publicly blast the administration”.
This is not true. Ambassador Wilson made no public statements critical of the Administration’s claims about the alleged purchase of yellowcake uranium until May of 2003—more than 15 months after returning from the trip and only after the President made the specious claim in the State of the Union address.
Our concern about Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney is narrower but important—are these men committed to a rule of law free of partisan influence? During the last Republican debate Rudy Giuliani said that:
he'd have to wait for the appeals process to play out to see if Libby met the criteria for a pardon. However, the former federal prosecutor said he believes the sentence imposed on Libby was "way out of line."
Mr. Giuliani had a different standard for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on September 11, 1987:
The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was "somewhat
shocking."
"A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient," Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge. . . .
Justice Smith was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury investigating corruption in the city, Mr. Giuliani said later, adding that "he could have helped root out corruption" by
cooperating with the grand jury.
Mr. Romney’s statement is more outrageous. He accused Patrick Fitzgerald of abusing "prosecutorial discretion."
The case against Mr. Libby is straightforward. He blocked the efforts of Federal agents to investigate the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer who was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Mr. Libby lied to Federal law enforcement officials
investigating the leak. Most importantly, Mr. Libby was convicted in a fair trial of perjury and obstruction of justice.
This is not an issue of Republican versus Democrat. The signatories of this letter include registered Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We believe that Republicans and Democrats alike must commit themselves to upholding the rule of law and refusing to use clandestine CIA officers as a political football. In this regard we find that the recent comments by Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney sadly wanting and unworthy of the highest elected office in the United States.
We are pleased, however, that the Republican Party is offering candidates who do believe in the rule of law. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul spoke boldly and reaffirmed the commitment of Republicans to uphold the rule of law. Both emphasized that the law must be applied to Mr. Libby, regardless of his social standing or wealth. We believe that Governor Gilmore and Congressman Paul reflect the values espoused by Ronald Reagan.
Good intelligence should not be a partisan issue. It is a professional obligation of intelligence officers to provide politicians with the best information and their best judgment. And it is the professional obligation of politicians to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the Constitution of the United States is upheld and enforced. On this critical issue we believe that the statements by Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney do damage to the reputation of the Republican Party and undermine public respect for the judicial system.
Respectfully yours,
Ray Close, Directorate of Operations
James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations
Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations
Michael Grimaldi, Directorate of Intelligence
Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence
Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence
Larry Johnson, Directorate of Intelligence
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council
Is that your excuse Henry? To blame it on Clinton and Obama?
Blame? Blame who for what?
Good non-sequitur.
I only point out that Shitlary and Osama-bama have the same accomplishments for which you criticized Thompson.
Typical moonbat hypocrite.
You're the one who referenced Hillary (Clinton) and Obama...
Are you saying that those two, since they have the "same" (hardly) accomplishments as Freddie, that they are equally as qualified in your bottom line rendering?
And what about the fact that you rightwingers are always going on about how you hate lawyers?
Yep, I sure did reference Shitlary and Osama-bama.
You are right: Shitlary and Osama-bama hardly have the same qualifications as Thompson.
Seems to me that Mrs. Clinton's credentials are second to none in this band of pretenders. For one She has spent a lot more time in the Whitehouse and really close to a "decider" for eight years. Oh and if we trace back I think you will find a pretty extensive amount of time spent in very close proximity to a State Attorney General and Governor. Now unlike nancy, barbara, and laura Mrs. Clinton was, is and always will be very engaged in the Political Process as well as Governance. Also, remember that like him or not Mr. Clinton was a very effective politician and had what even his most intelligent and ardent critics will admit, a very successful presidency. Like it or not he did leave office with a 67% approval rating. In fact while the republican knot heads in congress were impeaching him his approval rating remained in the high 60's which is precicely why cooler heads in the Senate decided not to try him. Reguarding the approval rating of the current occupant of the WH how's that working out for ya?
"Reguarding [sic] the approval rating of the current occupant of the WH how's that working out for ya?"
It's working out better than Harry Reid or the Democrat led Congress.
It is amazing to me that after 12 years of a republican majority in congress .. the national debt has doubled. I wonder how this happened. You don't don't suppose all the earmarking and coruption had anything to do with do ya?? Why even old Ted "Bridge to nowhere" Stevens is now under endictment. Tell me you don't think this was the first and only questionable earmark that took place during that period Nah!! it's the only one made famous. For many Americans it was just so agregious that it bacame a very big news story. I have attached an article about the current congress having to deal with earmarks added to spending bills before the American public decided it was time for a change. It is a bit lengthy but highly educational and worth reading. It will give you an idea of hard this work is. Perhaps you might want to print it and read it in the bathroom.
*****************************
When Chutzpah is an Understatement
By Scott Lilly
June 13, 2007
About 30 years ago the Hunt Brothers came close to cornering the world market on silver. But where they failed House Republican leaders have succeeded. They have clearly established a corner on the market in political brass.
Reps. John Boehner (R-OH), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA) all actively participated in the extraordinarily irresponsible explosion of congressional earmarking that began shortly after the Republicans gained control of the Congress in 1995 and lasted until the voters tossed them out this past November. But according to their political rule book, making a huge mess doesn’t mean you can’t complain about how someone else is cleaning it up.
Boehner and company understandably do not want the debate on this year’s appropriation bills to be focused on the substantive disagreements defined by White House budget director Rob Portman. Portman is threatening vetoes over congressional efforts to provide better medical care for returning veterans, long-needed help for first responders, and federal financial support for school improvement.
In an effort to sidestep those political mine fields they have instead decided that voters are dumb enough to forget who gave us “The Bridge to Nowhere,” who increased earmarking in the Labor, Health and Human Service Education bill from zero to more than a billion dollars a year, who tripled the number of earmarks in the defense bill, and who is currently the target of criminal investigations because of allegations that their earmarking practices were not only wasteful but also corrupt. Why, they ask, should anyone doubt their commitment to reform?
So indignant are they at the slow pace in reforming the abusive conduct they developed into an art form that they are now attempting to stop the movement of all appropriation bills and as a result funding for myriad critical federal programs.
The truth is that a lot of progress has already been made. On the first day of the new Congress, rules were adopted that:
Prohibited the use of earmarks to reward or punish a member of Congress for any vote he or she might cast.
Required that any member of Congress requesting a district-oriented earmark disclose in writing the name and address of the intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and whether the member has a financial interest in the organization or would benefit personally from the inclusion of the earmark.
Required that all matters before a conference committee (including earmarks) must be subject to full and open debate, that a final version of a conference report must be voted on by a meeting open to all members of the conference committee, and that no item (including earmarks) may be added to the legislation after the conference committee has adjourned.
If actions speak louder than words, the clearest message was sent when the new Congress excluded earmarks entirely from the nine fiscal year 2007 appropriation bills they had to complete in January—more than three months into the fiscal year.
The new Congress also pledged to cut the number of earmarks in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills to half the number that the previous Congress has enacted in fiscal year 2006.
And finally, the new Congress pledged to abandon a system in which earmarks were often determined by the desires of individual members without review of committee members, staff, or the agencies charged with executing the directed spending.
But the old Congress left more impediments to reform behind them than simply a system seemingly crafted to accommodate corruption and political abuse. One impediment was the mass of unfinished appropriations bills that consumed the first full month of the new Congress. The new Congress was also forced to grapple with reinvigorating the institution’s constitutional responsibility to conduct effective oversight on the programs and policies of the executive branch. It had to deal with the largest supplemental in history and specifically the administration’s intractable commitment to the Iraq war.
Implementation of effective scrutiny over earmark requests was further delayed in March, when the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee demanded an extension in the deadline for submitting earmark requests so that certain of his members could get further clarification as to whether under the new rules they would have to declare a financial interest in the earmarks they wished to request.
All of these impediments absorbed massive amounts of the time that is essential for establishing any responsible system for sifting through the more than 30,000 earmarks requested by members of both parties each year and eliminating those that do not comply with committee standards, conform to the requirements of the legislation that authorizes the programs they funded, or otherwise simply don’t pass the smell test.
An additional impediment that has not been broadly discussed is the legal difficulties facing Lewis, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. These difficulties are a direct result of how he handled earmarks while serving as chairman of the full committee—and, prior to that, chairman of the Defense subcommittee—and continue to impede the committee’s ability to exercise effective scrutiny over earmark requests.
A grand jury investigation into his conduct regarding earmarks has resulted in demands for documents that have forced the committee to scour tens of thousands of pages and consumed massive amounts of staff time not only of the full committee but of many of the individual subcommittees as well.
Why do earmarks require staff scrutiny? Many observers have naively argued that they don’t. But the question they have yet to answer is which of the 30,000 plus earmarks that have been requested are to be included in appropriation bills and which are to be left out? Given that the total dollar value of earmarks in the coming year is to be cut in half, about 80 percent of those requests must be excluded—but which 80 percent? That’s where the staff comes in.
In addition to those that involve plain bad judgment or even possible corruption, there are a host of other issues that have to be examined:
Some requests propose to earmark programs such as those within the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Homeland Security which have never before been earmarked and which the committee strongly opposes earmarking.
Some requests are duplicative.
Some requests fail to make it clear which programs the funds requested are to come from.
Some requests ask that funds earmarked within a specific program be used for purposes that the underlying legislation that created that program does not authorize.
Some requests appear to meet all of the necessary criteria but in the end turn out to be items that the requesting members are not really interested in.
If each earmark were requested on a single sheet of paper, the pile of paper necessary for 30,000 earmark requests would be well over 15 feet high.
When it became apparent late this spring that the process of sifting through the requested earmarks could not be completed before the deadline when appropriation bills have to be sent to the floor if they are to be completed before the beginning of the fiscal year, a difficult decision had to be made. Either consideration of the appropriation bills had to be delayed, or Congress would have to deviate from the new requirement that appropriation earmarks and the names of their sponsors have to be listed before the bills are considered on the House floor.
Delay in the consideration of appropriation bills is a more extreme step than most observers of the process may recognize. It would mean the House would grapple with the bills in July and September rather than June. Senate consideration would occur in September and October, and completion of conference agreements would take place in November and December. While that schedule is not inconsistent with the performance of the Congress over the past decade, it is a schedule that should be avoided at all cost.
When the Congress does not provide the executive branch with the funds necessary to do the government’s business before the beginning of the new fiscal year, which starts on October 1, it means that agency heads, program officers, and those who award grants or write contracts have only a fraction of a year to do the work that should take a full 12 months. This year many agencies did not get their final apportionments until March, leaving them with half a year to do a year’s worth of work. That inevitably leads to poor decisions, sloppily worded contracts, hastily considered grant awards, and ultimately wasted tax dollars.
The coming year is even more complicated than those of the recent past given the deep divisions that are already in evidence between the Congress and the White House on spending priorities. If many or all appropriations bills face a possible veto, it is even more important that the process not be delayed at the outset—and, I would argue, not be delayed while Congress fills in the blanks on projects that will ultimately constitute only 1 percent of discretionary spending.
The solution that the committee has concocted is a reasonable one. Allow the bills to go forward immediately without listing the earmarks. Programs and agencies that contain spending accounts that will eventually be earmarked will be funded at the level expected necessary to accommodate the earmarks. After the committee members and staff have had sufficient time to sort through the thousands of requests, consult with their sponsors, and decide which will be included, the lists will be published just as required by the rules.
The major problem with the proposal is that the agreed-to earmarks will not be available in time for the initial floor consideration of the bill in which they will be attached. But they will be available well in advance—probably more than a month—of the convening of a conference committee. Any earmark found to be egregious during that period can be targeted in the motion to instruct conferees, a motion controlled by the minority party. In addition, the new reforms adopted in January insure that any earmark may be fully debated in conference committee and any member of the conference can move to strike any proposed earmark.
It is regrettable that the process cannot be implemented as it was designed. Certainly next year there will be no excuse. But under the current circumstances, House leaders have chosen the course that will permit the maximum transparency and the least delay. It is a far more open and democratic process than we have ever had before. Despite the objections of the foxes who are trying to regain entry to the hen house, it is the best course for the country.
Try being a little more concise next time, Gordon. You make me hanker for henry. Gee whiz. Lay off the caffeine.
OK
No need to worry about earmarks. Democrats are quickly mastering the new art of the "phonemark".
Post a Comment
<< Home