2007-09-07 09:58:47 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I want to know more about him, but I like what I see so far.
2007-09-07 10:02:19 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Are you old enough to remember Watergate?
The Nixon White House broke into the campaign headquarters of his Democratic opponent, George McGovern, at the Watergate apartments in Washington DC.
This was a crime, and it was a criminal attempt to subvert the democratic processes that our system of government depends on. It was really a serious issue and in the end, President Nixon was forced to resign because of the break in and ensuing cover up.
At the time, Fred Thompson was a lawyer for the Republicans in Congress. Congress was investigating the break in and deciding whether to impeach Nixon.
Amazingly, Fred Thompson told the White House the details of what Congress was finding out. As a lawyer working for Congress in the investigation of serious crimes, he leaked information to the people being investigated!
I find this really shocking: he was aiding an anti-democracy crime.
As far as I can tell this should have kept him from ever being elected for anything.
Would you really vote for someone who violated the trust of the American people that way?
-----
"Scott Armstrong, the senior investigator for Democrats on the Watergate Committee, said he didn't know until Thompson's book was published that Thompson had tipped off Buzhardt about Butterfield's pending testimony, but it didn't surprise him, since Thompson had tipped off the White House about the explosive testimony of former Watergate conspirator John Dean."
2007-09-07 10:34:12 · answer #2 · answered by 62,040,610 Idiots 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A former lobbyist, so-so former Senator, lazy, so-so actor who can't seem to make up his mind what he wants to do. I won't even mention the bimbo trophy wife he has. He is also old. His age alone doesn't mean anything as Reagan was old when he was elected but he was strong as a horse. Ol' Freddy boy is not nearly as healthy as Ronnie was.
So, no I will not support, nor vote for Fred Thompson.
2007-09-07 10:12:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thompson is doing what he consistently did as a senator.... wait and wait and wait till its too late to do something. If he's going to be the subsequent president then he greater effective initiate campaigning and debating... whilst he waits the GOP donors are sending their money to fairly genuine applicants. those donors heavily isn't spending so plenty greater on yet another candidate. you need to compete jointly with your primary combatants with money... then in case you win the primary you greater effective nonetheless have money to conflict the different social gathering's candidate. The longer you wait the donations get smaller and smaller. This has been a situation with Thompson... he's very sluggish. he's clever yet sluggish and it is somewhat not a time to be sluggish.
2016-11-14 10:52:26 · answer #4 · answered by tahir 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in putting handgun candidates under a microscope before giving them and Cho a semi-automatic people killing gun. Killers can buy on the street or get better ones at shows:
He voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
But the biggest problem I have with Fred is he says:
I would do essentially what the president's doing in Iraq.
His immigration policy rocks!
2007-09-07 10:17:02 · answer #5 · answered by Bambi 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
So far....I think he is much needed. We need someone to simply say feds can't do everything for us under our Constitution. Be it cure our health, protect us for various factions, stop the 'gay menace', cure poverty, etc etc etc. We need someone to reign in the overzelous federal government and simply tell people....most of these are state issues, not federal ones. You don't like your statutes? Move to a more compatible state. You want gay marriage? MA is just right for you. You want less nanny state....go to SD. Both parties have failed in this. The Democrats have failed this since FDR and the GOP just recently started a completely different mess of federal government nannyism for the past 6 years.
It is ok for states to do their own thing every now and then as long as they don't break the Constitution.
2007-09-07 10:16:42 · answer #6 · answered by emp 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He should run as a Democrat.
Lobbied for a pro choice group
Trial lawyer specializing in personal injury cases.
Professional lobbyist.
Hollywood elite.
Lazy, does not like to work hard.
Not really a GOP candidate.
2007-09-07 10:54:08 · answer #7 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know much about him but from what I've seen, he seems like a decent candidate. I completely agree that another Clinton in office will certainly be horrific for America.
2007-09-07 10:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by RG 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He will win the presidency and the nomination, just look at him. I mean Giuliani? come on his daughter doesnt even support him.
2007-09-07 10:49:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Time will tell at least he didn't sell the citizens out on the Shamnesty bill>
2007-09-07 10:03:45 · answer #10 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Does his wife look like First Lady material?
2007-09-07 10:02:37 · answer #11 · answered by smartypants909 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋