Why would Fred Thompson avoid last night's debate? He has yet to appear on stage.?

Answer 1

He believes that the less you know about him, the more you will like him.

Answer 2

He is crazy like a fox. Fred is allowing the other candidates to make fools of themselves. He will jump in the debates after a few more drop out.

Answer 3

Because when you are constantly paroting the president on a TV show (law & order) where noone really questions you, why go up on stage? The guy gets a free stump on TV, conveniently from a company (GE) that profits from war. And as long as we allow media companies to be owned by or do business with the military, this will continue.

Answer 4

He's an actor, he needs a script. What happens if he's asked a question that isn't in the script? He would look like an idiot. He can't take the risk. He doesn't have enough courage to be president. That goes for all 4 who missed the debate.

Answer 5

people might find out about his false platform(what he says he stands for and his voting record are 2 different things )instead of him getting support for name recognition and his role on a TV show

Answer 6

My guess is he doesn't need to. More than likely he thinks it is entirely too early (which, it is). Besides, it's not mandatory.

Answer 7

maybe he believes the present candidates are doing a fine job. :)

Answer 8

he has nothing to say, he only reads from scripts

he really doesnt want us to see him as himself, we will be dissapointed from the charactor he has tried to portray

Answer 9

He might not really want to be President.
Maybe he is only in the race to increase his celebrity status so he can get more acting jobs.

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

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.