Why is Fred Thompson too scared to participate in tonight's debate?

Question

Currently, on the frontpage of Drudge Report (famous as the website that broke the story that Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern after the main$tream media covered it up), it says "Fred picks Leno over Foxnews debate" and "They can watch my ad."

The stories linked are:
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6797251?source=rss
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070905/D8RF2U5G0.html

So, the abortionist lobbyist and trial lawyer (see http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19 ) is afraid that he'll be hurt if he has to debate other candidates and risk being exposed as a phony.

Is he not participating because he doesn't want to end up being exposed as a RINO just like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain?

Answer 1

Fred Thompson is not a real conservative.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

And, last but not least:

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Ronald Reagan he is NOT!
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19

Also he is too liberal on immigration.
Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Answer 2

He's been looking rather cowardly lately hasn't he? How convenient that his official announce date is tomorrow - that way he doesn't participate in the debate tonight because he's not officially a candidate yet. It amazes me that he actually believes he can get away with not being vetted. Yeah, that's a "different" sort of campaign all right.

Answer 3

Maybe because no one will bother to watch it. And Fred can do better by not playing the trained seal game -- competing with 10 other seals for the sardines that Brit Hume will be tossing at him on these silly "debates".

Answer 4

Because the "debates" are useless and stupid and he's smart enough to know while participating in them can't hurt him, it sure won't help him. He wants the stage all to himself. He was leading in the polls without even running. This guy is the next Ronald Reagan.

Answer 5

Good grief! All this cr*p started over a year ago and the election is more than a year away. I don't care if none of them show up at a debate for at least another year! Hope they don't!!

Answer 6

Perhaps because his formal announcement isn't being made until tomorrow. What the heck, we've got plenty of times for debates before the primary elections.

Many people aren't even paying attention and watching debates any more because it started too early and folks are already beginning to burn out.

Smart move on Fred's behalf. Let the others beat themselves to death. Look at what's happening between Obama, Hillary and Edwards. They're fighting each other now.

Answer 7

Is he officially in the race?

no???

aren't debates for registered candidates? not just people who are about to throw their hat in the ring?

the only thing i see is some one afraid of Fred Thompson running.

why exactly are YOU afraid?

I am not a Fred Thompson supporter, but if he is making the trolls on here nervous then he might be worth looking in to.

Answer 8

As Fred himself said.....its harder to get on the Tonight Show than into the debates....

Answer 9

Fred has to wait as long as possible.
The less time he spends in the lime-light the better for him.

Of all the Republican candidates he is the least electable.

Answer 10

Once the public sees him for what he really is he will lose support like McCain has. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall but to appease people who equate him to Reagan he will announce he is running but later. What a yutz.

Answer 11

No one watches these early debates, more people watch Leno. Heck I'd rather unclog a public toilet with my bare hands then watch them.