Why would anyone vote for lobbyist hacks like Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton?

Question

Or Rudy Giuliani, or John Edwards, or Mitt Romney, or… well you get the picture.

ruth- no I don't mean lawyers. and I have an education. and i do have a lawyer. and no my attitude does not effect my lawyer's practice. and by lobbyist hack, i mean someone who serves the wrong interest, as in the lobbyists' interest and not the public interest.

ruth- by the way, what's the difference between a lawyer and catfish?

one's a scum sucking bottom dweller, and the other one is a fish.

ruth- give me a break. I fully understand the fundamentals of lobbying. Money is influence, influence is power... and I'm not surprised it works that way too. Besides, my question is, why would anyone vote for who is OBVIOUSLY acting in the lobbyists' interest and not ours. Corporations ccan have whatever lobbying ability they want, but it's not right that they can buy favorable policy.

Answer 1

The dumb, deaf and blind!

Answer 2

Lawyers, you mean? Just say it.

I hope you don't need one with your attitude, because one won't be able to help you.

A legal education is a necessity in knowing how to read and make laws. The job of Congress is to read and make laws.

Lobbyists are often lawyers. It is smart, because they are expected to know the laws.

Before you make blanketing statements that undermine the US government's operations, get an education.

If you want to change the system, I recommend a LEGAL education. Become a lawyer and change it from within.

ADDED: Eric, that cut-n-paste is getting old. A "true" Conservative cannot unite this nation. The job of the President is to represent the ENTIRE nation. Fred Thompson is pragmatic enough to do that and you Ron Paul advocates do not live in the reality of the US today.

Answer 3

When we run someone better we can vote for them. Unfortunately we vote for those on the ballot. Perhaps you should run since you are an obvious expert on the perfect candidate. I might even vote for you if you are not a lawyer and can convince me that you are the right person. Why not?

Answer 4

I hope not.

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:

Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop3.html

As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo
The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities.
The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.


As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade
"Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility.
"Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes."

He also voted:

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

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

♦ 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 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 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.

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

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

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

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

♦ 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.

♦ 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.

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

I will be voting for Ron Paul.