Author Archive

Fred Heads all over this great country are initiating a National Day of Fred Giving on November 21st. They are also organizing a letter writing campaign via the Fred08 website for the same day.

All donations should be made or linked via the official campaign website - and are to be made from Midnight - 11/21/07 until 11:59 PM that night.

Please consider making a donation to Fred’s campaign, and please help get the word out about this effort.

For more information please go to BFFT Fred Giving

————————

UPDATE: November 15 @ 10: 58 AM The official Fred’s Giving Day website is up. Lane over at Blogs for Fred Thompson has worked very hard, so stop over and take a look. Pledge to donate today!

From the San Francisco Sentinel

Fred responds to a question from Hank Plante. Plante is a newscaster at KPIX.

HP: What is your position on civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay couples?

FT: I don’t think they are a good idea. I do think that states have the power under our Constitution to make their own determination with regard to the matter. So I’m a believer in federalism. I think the federal government’s power ought to be limited to what is set out in the Constitution with regard to the federal governent’s power. The states in regard to matters that are traditionally states matters ought to be free to make those decisions themselves even if Fred Thompson might disagree with with them. Now if they have significant interstate ramifications or national issues involved that is another story, but you have to decide those things on an issue by issue basis.

Geoff Kors of the EQCA responds to Thompson’s stance,

It is clear former Senator Fred Thompson is appealing to the most extreme elements of the Republican party and it is out of step with the country on this issue. It is out of step with California. 80% of Californians support giving rights to Lesbian and Gay couples, over 2/3 of the country. For him to come to San Francisco and make that statement was a deliberate attempt to appeal to the worse elements in his party and go into the politics of fear and hate that the public is sick and tired with President Bush and yet he is going to the right of President Bush on this issue.

Once again we see Fred Thompson stand up for federalist principles. While disagreeing that civil unions/domestic partnerships are a good idea, he wants those decisions left up to the state. I’m not sure what Mr. Kors means by Fred is appealing to “the most extreme elements of the Republican party”. Since the States would have the power to make their own decisions, then technically California in essence could honor and recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. That’s the great thing about federalism. What is wanted in one state, may not be wanted in another — and the states are free to make those choices and decisions. Thompson admits that his personal beliefs have no bearing on any decision made by the states. While he may disagree with the idea, in no way does he agree that the Federal government has a right to intervene in any State decision, unless it poses a “significant interstate ramification” and even then it’s going to be on an “issue to issue basis”.

Apparently Mr. Kors has no desire to listen to Fred Thompson. The fact he is unwilling to hear him out because he is a Republican is pathetic. And we’re supposed to believe that progressives are the most open minded people out there. But over and over again we see the same derangement syndrome from liberals. Obviously because Fred Thompson and other conservatives disagree with something, that automatically means we fear and hate it. How telling that Mr. Kors calls those who support the Constitution “the most extreme” among us. Completely shameful if you ask me.

Joel Achenbach of WashingtonPost.com decided to take issue with the Fred and Jeri Thompson interview that aired on Hannity and Colmes the other night, and it’s not for reasons you’d think. As a Thompson supporter, I have grown accustomed to the litany of complaints about Fred Thompson, and after awhile you learn to tune them out. There is only so many times I can hear the word lazy and Fred Thompson in the same sentence, so thank goodness Achenbach just tap dances around it,

Thompson is running a strong second in the national polls, and has single-handedly restored to common usage the word “laconic.” He mulled a presidential run back in the spring, then ambled into the race about a month ago, and may soon get around to saying why he should be president. This is a man who cannot be rushed…

But wait there’s more!

…More problematic is his style on the stump, which, to hear reporters tell it, has the tendency to stupefy the audience. He’s as vague as the day is long. He has to cue his listeners that it would be an appropriate time to clap. But some folks may find him a calming, reassuring presence. They may get the sense that, no matter what crisis might erupt, Thompson won’t get too riled about it, and it’ll still soon be nap time.

While the article starts in with the same litany of complaints, it didn’t take long for Mr. Achenbach to bust out a new one.

Thompson’s children were a distraction.

As a wife and mother, I cannot tell you how much that bothers me. But then again, what should I expect from a society that places such little emphasis on the most precious and innocent among us? Children are seen as nothing more than a celebrity fashion statement, or a “choice” with no rights and no voice. Some in society expect the rest of us to see children as an inconvenience. I simply refuse to do that. I watched the interview while my 3.5 year old son proceeded to use me as his own personal jungle gym and while posting a few short news stories to Falcons for Fred. I’m not sure how I did it, but somehow I managed to focus on Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and hear 99 percent of what they said. I guess those of us with children are able to effectively multi-task more-so than your average political pundit/blogger. Achenbach goes on to write,

The unflappable nature of Thompson was on display on Wednesday night when he and his wife, Jeri, sat for an interview with Sean Hannity. The first segment began with each parent holding a child. Jeri held the little one, Samuel, who quickly disappeared off-camera, but Fred kept 4-year-old Hayden parked on his left leg for six minutes, even as the little angel did everything in her diabolical power to distract the viewer.

She puffed her cheeks. She waved her hands. She counted. She hummed. She sang. She scratched her nose. She bit on her blouse. She scuffed her palms together as if washing her hands of a problem. To her credit, she didn’t squirm: She was, in fact, a very well behaved young lady, but like much of America she had not the slightest interest in whatever the candidate was saying.

Children can be excellent political props. Usually they are lined up in front of the politician, or perhaps on risers behind, serving as a kind of bunting. The stagecraft in the Hannity interview was presumably intended by the Thompson campaign to humanize the candidate and soften the image of his wife, who has been the target of accusations that she’s more ambitious than he is. Message: I couldn’t get a sitter! What professional Mom wouldn’t relate?

I don’t really think you need to humanize Fred Thompson or his wife. Let’s leave the maniacal fake laughter to Hillary Clinton. It’s her image that needs to be softened not Jeri’s, but I digress. However, that wasn’t the worst of it,

The presidential candidate, meanwhile, said … well, who knows what he said. The kid stole the show. Surely viewers were shouting at the TV screen, “Hand her to the nanny!”

Spoken like a true liberal. Just shove the children off to the babysitter, nanny or day care. You mean parents aren’t supposed to raise their children? Nolan must have been distracting me again, because I obviously missed another memo. I for one applaud Fred and Jeri Thompson for having their children there on set with them for part of the Sean Hannity interview. I applaud them for campaigning as a family. Some will say the children are being used as a political prop, but I simply don’t see it that way. I see it as a mother and father who deeply love their children and share all aspects of family life TOGETHER. Wow, there’s a novel idea — parents raising their own children, spending time with them and being responsible for their care. The United States would be a much better place if all parents were as invested in their children as Fred and Jeri are. Obviously, it’s no secret that I disagree with the Hillary Clinton mantra of “it takes a village to raise a child”. Because it’s typically the one’s who tell you it takes a village that have the nannies. As a parent, it’s my job (along with my husband) to raise our son. The job does not belong to his grandparents, his Preschool teacher, or his aunts or uncles. But try telling socialists that. To make an issue out of Hayden and Samuel at an interview is really quite petty and nit-picky. It makes the people doing it look like a bunch of jackasses.