Archive for the issues Category
I, like everyone else, have been going through this same process of assessing our remaining choices and trying to come up with an acceptable candidate. After a full year of research, conversation, and campaigning for Fred, none of the remaining candidates seem to measure up. However, too much is at stake to “sit this one out” or enter a protest vote for any third party candidate. It looks like I will, once again, vote “against” someone by choosing the least objectionable person.
Right now I am somewhat leaning towards Mitt Romney, but I am still wrestling with the decision. My support of Fred Thompson was strong and set in stone, while any preference right now is “set in Jello.” I have totally ruled out Hucklebee and Ron Paul, for what should be obvious reasons.
Hucklebee is way too slimy, and reminds me too much of Bill Clinton. Polished politician; often referred to as “likable” (to the uninformed voter); reverts to underhanded attack tactics then blames others for negative campaign; changes his position to the location, the audience, or the moment. Totally Unacceptable!
Ron Paul has many stances that I can agree with, but nearly all his views are way too extreme. His misreading of the constitution is troubling and destructive, and his aversion to any national defense is insane. The majority of his followers are either anti-war zealots, anti-drug law advocates, or anti-government anarchists. I regret giving RP more attention than he deserves, but I must admit that I enjoy any opportunity to rail against this whacko. Totally Unacceptable!
John McCain has not been totally wiped off of my list, but he is right on the edge. I have some very serious concerns about John McCain. Anyone must honor and respect JM’s military service, but it sometimes irks me that he always seems to refer back to his service 40 years ago when confronted with a tough question rather than going to his recent record. The MSM has dubbed him “The Maverick” for a reason. For many years, when the MSM has wanted a “Republican” to criticize the President, fellow republicans, or any conservative initiative, they would always call on John McCain. And McCain would be all too eager to comply. His close relationship and frequent collaborations with Ted Kennedy should trouble us all. Would a President McCain confer with Ted Kennedy before introducing a Supreme Court nominee? I believe, and history would tell us, that he would. That alone should be enough to scratch him from my short list, but there are many other problems including his liberal immigration stance. He NOW says that he “heard the American people” and supports building the fence first. However, he failed to hear the American people when they said “no” to amnesty. McCain still adamantly defends and supports amnesty, though he insists on drawing Clintonesque distinctions. Unacceptable unless faced with choice against Hillary or Obama!
Rudy has too many personal issues in his history for me to ever feel totally comfortable with him. Just like Bill Clinton, I find it hard to trust someone that can not honor the closest and most personal commitment in his life. I do think Rudy would be very good on national defense, but question his commitment to securing the borders and taking a strong stance against illegal immigration. A strong immigration and border policy is also an indispensable part of national defense. His pro-abortion history is a big problem. Though he now says he would appoint originalist judges, his history on abortion, second amendment rights, and other social issues makes me suspect he would nominate liberal activist judges throughout the Federal Courts. This goes back to the “Trust” issue. Unacceptable unless faced with choice against Hillary or Obama!
Romney is the only remaining viable candidate. At this point, I want to learn more about Romney since I know less about him than any of the remaining candidates. As I stated, the others have so many obvious deficiencies that I have explored and utilized much in my support of Fred Thompson. As I look back on it now, I have not really had as many substantive differences with Romney as the other candidates. He does seem too “plastic” to me, and too much like a “politician.” His plastic hair really annoys me, but I was able to get used to Ronald Reagan’s hair, so I may be able to get used to it. Fred never had that problem. Many worry about Mitt’s late conversion to pro-life, and I want to explore that also, but I would not discount a true conversion to the right to life position. That is, in essence, what we need to have more of in order to win the battle for life. I guess for me, at this point, Mitt Romney is leading by default. Still examining!
In closing, we are all disappointed that Fred is out, but must now select from the “lesser” candidates. We each need to make our own decision, and I hope that no one is offended by my assessment. If you favor one of those that I have crossed off my list I know that you have your reasons and I respect your choice (unless that choice is Ron Paul). I wish everyone here would commit to supporting whoever the eventual nominee is because the consequences of a Hillary or Obama administration would be devastating. The damage done could not be corrected in my lifetime, and my children deserve more for their future.
Please comment below and give your current assessment of the field.
Thank you,
Tim
 No Comments »
Fred Thompson just began running the latest campaign ad in South Carolina, thanks to the generous help of thousands of supporters like you and I that made modest donations to the campaign.
Please Help
The financial support for Fred’s campaign has been very strong since he dominated the South Carolina Republican debate, but this is a long campaign and Fred will continue to need the cash to get his Consistent Conservative message out to the voters. If you can, please make a modest contribution to Fred’s campaign.
Thank you,
Tim
No Comments »
Following is the text of an email that just went out to all registered members of Ohio4Fred, Ohio FredHeads, and everyone else that matters in my address book. This will be a critical part of the campaign, and I ask that any visitors to this site also consider what is at stake and make a modest contribution to support a return to honest conservative leadership.
The contribution button in the sidebar to the right will take you to the donation page of Fred’s official site.
Thank you,
Tim McDonadl
Fellow Conservatives,
Most of the other contenders were campaigning in Iowa long before Fred even considered entering the race. But Fred Thompson defied the “experts” and finished third in Iowa after only three weeks of relentless campaigning in that state. Those same experts, pundits, and the main stream media were predicting that Fred would quit the race after the Iowa caucuses. However, Fred emphatically rejected that thinking when he declared, “It looks like somebody is going to need to carry a strong, consistent, conservative message and it looks like it ought to be me.” He made it very clear that he intends to continue the fight.
You can view the entire speech through this link.
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2008/audio-ticket-to-the-next-dance/
Fred Thompson gained much ground during his intensive three week bus tour of Iowa, and he wants to continue the momentum through New Hampshire, leading to a strong showing in South Carolina.
Fred has asked that we step up and help him to make a strong push through this leg of the campaign. He is asking that we help build the finances for the road ahead, and has challenged his supporters to donate $540,000 between now and January 11th. If Fred can get the message out, the votes will follow.
He is also asking that we help to add 50,000 new “Friends of Fred” over that period. He is asking that each of us send a personal email to 10 friends explaining why we support Fred Thompson for President, and ask that they visit Fred08.com and register as a “Friend of Fred”.
As part of this effort, we would like to send a special message to Fred. The Fred Thompson movement began nearly a year ago with just a few people looking for a true, consistent conservative to join the race for President. In a short time that idea grew into a true grassroots movement with thousands of ardent supporters, and convinced Fred Thompson to throw his hat in the ring. We want to send a message to Fred that the Grassroots spirit is alive and well, and we still have the energy to take on the long campaign. For those of us that have been here from early on, and those that have just joined the fight, lets send a grassroots message to Fred. I am asking you to make a modest donation to the campaign on Sunday night between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. local time in whatever time zone you are in. Donate to Fred
The campaign is aware of this challenge, so lets make sure that there is a noticeable bump in the contributions during that time. We want to show Fred that the grassroots supporters are ready to rally behind the only true, consistent, unwavering, unapologetic conservative in the running.
Please pass this message to everyone you know that may be interested in supporting a strong national defense; secure borders; a strong economy; adherence to the constitution; originalist Federal Judges; lower, simpler, fairer taxes; protection of the unborn; traditional marriage; the Federalist principles of smaller government; and many more conservative ideals. You will find the full package in only one candidate - Fred Dalton Thompson!
If you want, you can forward this email, but please include your personal note of why you support Fred Thompson.
Thanks,
Tim
No Comments »
Please read the following full text copied from a November 22, 2007 “Action Alert” by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.
NumbersUSA is an organization dedicated to getting our immigration policies under control.
Some of their goals as published on their website are:
To examine numerical levels of annual legal and illegal immigration, and to support lower numbers.
To educate the public about the immigration-reduction recommendations from two national commissions of the 1990s.
NumbersUSA Action is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. It opposes efforts to use federal immigration policies to force mass U.S. population growth and to depress wages of vulnerable workers. NumbersUSA Action is pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-liberty and pro-immigrant. Activists in the NumbersUSA Action network are Americans of all races and include many immigrants and the spouses, children and parents of immigrants. Those who need to refer to NumbersUSA Action with a short, descriptive modifier should call it an “immigration-reduction organization.”
Learn more about NumbersUSA and their work at http://www.numbersusa.com/index
If you are interested in supporting a Presidential candidate that understands the illegal immigration issue and offers sound solutions, then continue reading what Roy Beck of NumbersUSA has to say about Fred Thompson.
NumbersUSA has been working for a sound immigration policy for over 10 years.
NumbersUSA is NOT affiliated with Fred Thompson or his campaign, but they can recognize the one candidate with a plan to secure our borders and get illegal immigration under control.
Please read the article below, and please forward to all of your contacts.
Thank you,
Tim McDonald
http://conservablogs.com/ohio4fred/
http://ohiofredheads.org/
http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx
NumbersUSA Action Alert
From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: Thanksgiving 22NOV07 4:30 p.m. EST
Fred Thompson’s official immigration-reduction stance sets new bar for detailed vision
HAPPY THANKSGIVING,
I’m taking a break from parades, football games and dinner prep with my wife, my sons and their wives (and assorted grandpets) in a Queens co-op. I hope each of you can similarly find yourself in the midst of warm community this holiday weekend. With Congress away from the Capitol, I finally feel a relative sense of security that allows me to turn my full attention to the fast-approaching presidential primaries.
I’ve been watching some political ads on the internet and reading through the official websites.
I find myself overwhelmed with a sense of thanksgiving that — after three decades as a journalist observing reckless, thoughtless federal immigration policies attack the lives of the American people — I can clearly see that the broad field of presidential candidates is under enormous pressure to move in our direction on immigration.
Candidates that have always been good on immigration have gotten better. Those who were mediocre or incomplete in the past have become good or excellent. And of those who have been terrible on protecting Americans from promiscuous, uncontrolled immigration, many are starting to show signs of doubt (witness the consternation some have been showing over driver’s licenses for illegal aliens).
People like you are making that happen. Thanks to all who have been sending faxes and emails, and who have been making phone calls, to presidential campaigns over the last year.
Of course, we aren’t even close to where we need to be with these candidates. It is still frighteningly possible that the two nominees will provide barely better than George Bush’s disastrous immigration leadership!
There is still so much you can do to help shape the candidates’ immigration stances. They are still in flux. Let’s continue to “flux” them in the right direction!
A SERIES OF ANALYSIS & SUGGESTED ACTIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL RACES COMING YOUR WAY
Nothing is likely to have more effect on our lives in terms of immigration 2009-2012 (maybe through 2016) than how the primaries & caucuses in January and February narrow presidential choices down to two people.
We will continue through December to rally you to push Congress to:
put back $3 billion into border security initiatives
mandate that all businesses use E-Verify to take the jobs magnet away from illegal immigration
But throughout December we will also be giving you a lot of special analysis of each Presidential candidate and each shift of their immigration positions — as well as things you can do to nudge those shifts.
As with all of our immigration grading the last 10+ years, we will not be endorsing candidates or favoring Parties or political ideologies. But we will pull no punches in candidly assessing the immigrapø~HTätion positions of all. If you want your favorite candidates to get a better write-up from us, you’ll need to persuade them to strengthen their immigration positions.
And as always, please contact us if you see anything on our website or in our emails that appears to be in error or incomplete.
IN A TREND OF INCREASINGLY DETAILED EXCELLENT POLICY PROMISES BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES — THOMPSON HAS SET A NEW HIGH STANDARD
When Fred Thompson came out with a detailed immigration policy this fall, I knew it was very good but was too busy leading the fight against amnesties in the Senate to give thorough attention.
Reading Thompson’s full proposed immigration policy this afternoon, I am blown away by its depth, its breadth and at how it would so fundamentally change Americans’ future for the better.
As a Senator from Tennessee in the 1990s, Thompson had a mixed record on immigration. I’ve studied that record and believe it reflects the problem that we saw even in some of this year’s Senate heroes who also were mediocre in the 1990s — most of them just weren’t paying much attention to this issue in the 1990s (just like a lot of you have only become active on this during the last couple of years).
NumbersUSA always gives ample credit to politicians who turn from bad or mediocre records and decide to become our champions. But less-than-stellar past records require us to look for signs of sincerity and assurance that they will follow through on their promises.
With Thompson, we will be watching closely for these signs. One strong point for him is that he finished his Senate career with an A-minus performance in 01/02 term after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And since coming out with his official stance, he has not been equivocating when asked about immigration in media apppø~earances or in strong immigration ads.
KEY PARTS OF THE THOMPSON IMMIGRATION PLAN
You can read the full Thompson immigration plan at:
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
I hope many of you will send messages of reinforcement to the Thompson campaign (as we’ve asked you to do for other candidates when they do positive things). Here is a link to the websitehttp://www.fred08.com/index.aspx
THE THOMPSON PLAN
END CHAIN MIGRATION!
I don’t find any other presidential website that explicitly has the end of chain migration as a goal. I have maintained since my first books in the mid-1990s that ending Chain Migration is the single most effective action forpø~HTä reducing negative immigration impacts. Chain Migration breeds all kinds of illegal immigration among extended family who feel they have an entitlement to immigrate and don’t wait their turn. Chain Migration multiplies the harm of every immigration action by allowing each new immigrant and refugee to eventually import huge extended families and eventually whole villages.
Thompson would restrict immigrants and refugees to bringing in their spouse and minor children. No more adult siblings, adult children or parents. Hence, no more nephews, nieces, in-laws, aunts, uncles and cousins — unless they earn the right on their own merits. Everybody could come to visit on carefully controlled visitor visas. But if people want to live with their entire extended families, they’ll need to continue to live where their extended family lives.
ELIMINATE THE VISA LOTTERY.
Since 1990, this ridiculous program gives away the opportunity fpø~HTäor U.S. citizenship to some 50,000 people a year based on totally random luck of the draw, with no regard to the national interest, the immigrant’s skills, education or humanitarian claim.
Inadvertently, the lottery rules are set up so that people from terrorist sponsoring countries are a disproportionate percentage of the winners.
The lottery is a breeder of illegal immigration as it gives false hopes to tens of millions of people around the world who play the lottery each year, many of whom eventually decide to speed up their dream by moving illegally to the U.S. and waiting to win the lottery here.
(weakness) No Explicit Goal of Numerical Reduction.
Although eliminating Chain Migration and the Visa Lottery would reduce future legal and illegal immigration by 5-8 million per decade, it would do so only if Congress and the President abstain from increasing other categories of immigration. Thompson has left this issue unansweredpø~HTä.. I can find Tom Tancredo as the only candidate who actually promises total immigration reductions. Tancredo urges that legal immigration be reduced from its current 1 million a year to 250,000 a year, which is near our traditional average before the last three decades of abuse.
NO AMNESTY.
Thompson seems to rule out any kind of amnesty that would allow illegal aliens to remain in the United States.
ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT.
Thompson promotes that very term. His goal is to drive as many illegal aliens as possible to voluntarily leave the country because magnets have been removed and the chances of being arrested and deported have been increased. He does not accept that we are stuck with the 12-20 million illegal aliens.
MANDATORY USE OF E-VERIFY BY ALL BUSINESSES TO KEEP ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF U.S. JOBS.
DENY TAX DEDUCTION TO EMPLOYERS FOR THE WAGES THEY PAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
The IRS already knows all the employees who are working without valid Social Security numbers. This provision would simply authorize the IRS to disallow deductions for wages paid to those particular employees, thus increasing the costs of hiring illegals.
FINISH BUILDING THE 854–MILE WALL ON THE MEXICAN BORDER AS AUTHORIZED BY 2006 LAW.
RIGOROUS ENTRY/EXIT TRACKING OF LEGAL VISITORS.
“Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.”
TARGET SMUGGLERS, GANG MEMBERS AND SPEED UP DEPORTATIONS.
“Adpø~HTäding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons. … Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. … Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.”
ENFORCE EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS.
END SANCTUARY CITIES & BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Cut off discretionary federal grant funds “as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of pø~an alien in the United States.”
“Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.”
“Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Friends, these candidates are increasingly figuring out what the American people want. The Thompson plan goes far beyond platitudes and, in my opinion, shows interest and understanding of what it would actually take to bring back order into our immigration system.
I am exceedingly pleased to see this development.
I’ll be writing soon with more on these crucial Presidential races.
ENJOY YOUR WEEKEND,
P.S. We can triple our membership quickly if our members email their friends about us and they in turn email theirs. Polls show that most Americans agree with NumbersUSA’s positions but, despite our recent rapid growth, most American voters still have never heard of us. You can help change that by forwarding this email widely. (Note: depending on your email provider, you may need to send this as an “attachment.”)
This may be a good time for you to make sure that you’ve let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here http://www.numbersusa.com/survey?action=longlist
As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user
NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
No Comments »
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.
1 Comment »
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.
No Comments »
We have another fine article submitted by Renee, of Bowling Green State University. In this article she expands on a comment by Fred Thompson in his reply to “HillaryCare”. The article, “Liberals and S-P’s Convenient Use of ‘Choice”‘, examines the question of “Who Really Believes in Choice?”
No Comments »
Renee Daley, of BGSU4FredThompson, has submitted another excellent article. This time she takes on the hypocrisy of the Left, as they politicize everything, including national security. John Edwards had attacked Fred Thompson regarding the War on Terrorism. John Edwards? The specific offender this time is John Edwards, but they all seem to run from the same playbook.
That playbook is now written by the likes of George Soros and MoveOn.org.
Please Read “The Audacity of John Edwards”
No Comments »
How will the 2008 election affect our daily lives?
Does it really make a difference?
How much difference can the President really make in the way we live?
Let me start by stating that I won’t even speculate how the eventual Democrat candidate could change our lives. We are all aware of their priority issues, the usual special interest groups, the fringe factions that now dictate policy, and their general approach of Big Government solutions to every perceived problem. I won’t even mention the Democrat candidates. You already know them, … or you think you do.
Let’s try to maintain a positive approach, and not even visit the potential “Dark Side.” I will leave it to your imagination and speculation what may lurk in the future with a potential Democrat victory with control of the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. Let’s concentrate on the benefits of a Fred Thompson Presidency.
First, to begin on a positive note, I must say that each of the Republican candidates has qualities that I consider admirable. I believe they are, for the most part, honest and basically good people. Several I could even actively support if Fred Thompson were not available. Any would be preferable to the Democrat alternatives. (Sorry, that was a borderline negative comment.)
The bottom line is that none of these candidates have shown a consistent conservative approach to all of the issues across the board - except for Fred. Fred Thompson has been consistently conservative because that is who he is. My father always used to say that “if you are going to lie, you better have one hell of a memory. It is much easier to know the truth than it is to remember your last lie.”
Fred Thompson knows the truth about conservatism, because he has lived it for over forty years. He has always been a strong advocate for smaller government and the principles of Federalism. He believes in the fundamentals set forth in our Constitution, and does not believe that appointed judges should make legislative decisions. Fred Thompson is proud of conservative principles, and he will not waver on his deeply held beliefs.
Read Fred Thompson’s opinions on the major issues of the day and you will understand his thoughtful, consistently conservative thinking. Fred on the Issues.
Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate that can defeat the ultimate Democrat nominee. He has the ability to articulate and defend conservative philosophy in a way that is easily understood by all. He explains his views in a way that is logical and non threatening. He has the ability to win over the “moderates” and the old “Reagan Democrats” without compromising his ideals. Conservative values are winning values if presented in an honest, consistent, and unapologetic manner.
2 Comments »
The following article, Thompson Gets an A+ for Education ,was written by Renee Daley and submitted to Ohio4Fred. Renee and Matthew Daley are students at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, and have been long time supporters of Fred Thompson. They have been active in organizing students and youth for Fred Thompson, and have created a blog for student FredHeads. Please visit and support their site, BGSU 4 Fred Thompson.
If you know of any students or youth that are interested in supporting or learning more about the next President of these United States, encourage them to check out their site.
This article examines education in America from the perspective of a student and education major. What is the Federalist approach to education, and what are the views of Fred Thompson? Thompson Gets an A+ for Education
Thanks to Renee for an excellent article.
No Comments »
Fred Thompson presents an overview of the issues surrounding the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick in his commentary, “Judge Southwick Should Be Confirmed”, on the I’mWithFred website. He then published a brief article, “Follow up on Judge Southwick” when the nomination passed the Judiciary Committee by a slim 10-9 vote.
Confirmthem.com is a website that investigates issues related to judicial nominees and provides background information on those nominees and the nomination process. They have provided a profile of Judge Southwick and links to the actual opinions that those opposing this nomination have cited in their objections. It can be enlightening to seek the facts and not rely on rumor and biased accusations.
Stuart Taylor, webcommentary.com, provides some background on this nomination, and offers some interesting insight into the obstructive tactics now employed by the Democrats in his article, “Stuart Taylor on Judges”. Following is an excerpt from that article.
Southwick also wears a distinctive badge of courageous service to his country. After joining the Army Reserve in 1992, at age 42, he volunteered in 2003 to transfer into a Mississippi National Guard combat unit that would soon be sent overseas.
He was on active duty in Iraq (and on leave from his judgeship) from August 2004 to January 2006.
So it was not surprising that Southwick’s nomination to a federal District Court seat won unanimous, bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee approval late last year. After the 109th Congress ended without a floor vote on his nomination, President Bush named Southwick to fill a vacancy on the 5th Circuit. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy told Republican colleagues that they expected committee approval and a floor vote within a few months.
Then began the attacks by liberal interest groups, and the same Judiciary Committee Democrats who had voted to confirm Southwick last year got cold feet. People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign led the charge. Their joint May 8 letter [PDF] to the Judiciary Committee accused Southwick of “highly disturbing” votes and “a problematic record on civil rights” lacking the requisite “commitment to social justice progress.” The Congressional Black Caucus objected especially to the nominee’s whiteness, as to that of Bush’s nine other judicial nominees in 37 percent black Mississippi. The New York Times denounced Southwick for “a disturbing history of insensitivity to blacks and other minority groups.”
Read full article
With the current Democrat majority, no nomination can make it out of committee without a Democrat vote. The lone Democrat defector, Dianne Feinstein of California, is already taking extreme heat from Democrats and the usual special interest groups on the left.
The far left factions have seized control of the Democrat Party, and it has become unacceptable for any Democrat to vote outside of these fringe elements, or face the fury of these marginal groups. This extreme ideology is demonstrated daily in the words and actions of the Democrat leaders. But when the American people loudly voice their objections, as was done with the “Comprehensive Immigration (amnesty) Bill”, all but the outer periphery of the extreme fringe must take notice.
The integrity of the courts and the judicial nomination process is as important to the future of America as any other issue. The Southwick nomination is out of committee, but there will be a furious battle in the Senate as the special interest groups rally to “encourage” Senators to block the nomination. We must pay close attention to all of these nominees, and prevent the insertion of the pure politics of obstruction. Do not forget what can be accomplished by the strong voice of the American people.
The profound consequences of these judicial appointments may not be immediately evident, but they will either reward us or haunt us for many years to come. As the liberals like to say, we need to do it “for the children.”
No Comments »
In June of 1995 President Clinton nominated Henry W. Foster, Jr. for Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Foster was nominated as a replacement for the controversial and failed tenure Dr. Joycelyn Elders. Dr. Foster was also a controversial nominee because of several issues, chief among them the fact that he had admitted to performing in excess of 700 abortions.
On June 21, 1995 Senate Democrats and some RINO Republicans were seeking a cloture vote to shut off debate on the nomination and force a vote on the nominee. Democrat Senators Mikulski, Dodd, Boxer, and Kennedy were among those strongly supporting this nomination. Of course, Senator Arlen Specter joined his friends on the left side of the aisle once again.
Senator Fred Thompson was among the strongest voices opposing this nomination.
The following is from the official text of the Congressional Record of June 21, 1995. The portion presented below includes comments from Senator Boxer and the comments from Senator Thompson that immediately followed.
Mrs. BOXER: He deserves his day. And filibustering this nomination is keeping him from his day. If you do not think a woman deserves a right to choose, fight against it. Convince the American people, because they do not agree with you. They want Government kept out of that decision. Do not take it out on a man who brought thousands of babies into this world. Oh, he forgot exactly the number of abortions. We have heard that. Maybe he forgot the exact number of babies he brought into the world. Would that change your mind? Let us be fair. Let us stop the personal attack. Let us stop Presidential politics. Let us vote for cloture. Then let each and every Senator vote his or her conscience. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Who yields time?
Mr. COATS: Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes, or more if he needs it, to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON: Mr. President, today we are debating much more than the qualifications of Dr. Henry Foster. Few could argue he is not technically qualified. Furthermore, few, if any, would contest the fact that Henry Foster is a decent man who has worked hard and done much good in his lifetime. I might also say, for my part I am not too caught up in these issues of credibility with regard to things that may or may not have happened a decade or more ago. I do not agree with my colleagues who say that you cannot trust this man. I hope the Members of this body are never judged by standards of consistency in other matters by which we judge some of these nominees.
However, Dr. Foster is caught up in something much bigger than himself and, therefore, so are the rest of us in this debate. Because of the way the President has used the office of Surgeon General and the appointments to it, we are now engaged in a heated national debate, one that I think is divisive and unnecessary. At a time when all of us, and especially the President, should be looking for ways to bring people together in this country, the President, by means of this appointment, has chosen instead to give a symbolic victory to one side in the abortion debate. The President has taken the office of Surgeon General, a rather obscure office with no real authority whose purposes have traditionally been to simply promote mental and physical health, and raised it to the position of spokesperson with regard to sensitive moral and social issues. Then he has proceeded to appoint Dr. Elders to that position, one of the worst and most controversial appointments in recent years. With that legacy, naturally the position has become one of great sensitivity to many of the American people. It is time for an appointment that will symbolize a return to matters of basic health care. It is time for an appointee who will command the attention and respect of the Nation with regard to these issues. Instead, the President has made an “in-your-face” appointment that was totally insensitive to the religious and moral beliefs of a large segment of the American people. One must assume the President knew the firestorm of divisiveness that this appointment would cause and that he simply assumed he would be the political winner in this national debate that would ensue, regardless of whether or not Dr. Henry Foster was confirmed. That is not the proper use of the office of the Surgeon General and that is not the proper use of this nomination. Therefore, I choose not to endorse the President’s actions and I will not vote to confirm this nomination.
I yield the remainder of my time.
There was a vote on cloture that day. A vote on cloture requires a 3/5ths majority, or 60 votes to close off debate. The cloture vote narrowly failed by a vote of 57 yeas, 43 nays. Debate on the nomination could not be stopped, and President Clinton was forced to withdraw the nomination.
1 Comment »
|
Entries (RSS)