[MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Fred Thompson for President (or not)

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Vern Green wrote:

> > > I don't hold lobbying against anyone, who is more of a problem, those 
> > > who lobby or those who are paid off by the lobbying?
> >
> > They essentially are criminal conspirators.  I hold both accountable. 
> > It's like illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, or 
> > prostitutes and johns, or drug dealers and drug purchasers.
>
> OK, then in your world, no Senator or Representative should be allowed 
> to run for President. Who does that leave then? Lobbying is something 
> that happens in Washington and until it is made illegal it is going to 
> continue to happen. Obama, Hillary, McCain, and even Romney have all be 
> lobbyed at one time or another.

You always take things one step beyond the logical!  ;-)  I didn't say 
that Thompson should not be allowed to run for President.  He is allowed 
to run.  I just won't vote for him and I'll do whatever I can to prevent 
him from winning if that seems like a plausible outcome of his candidacy.

Every member of Congress takes money from various sources.  I don't know 
that all of them take money from lobbyists.  I wish that none of them did 
so.  I don't like what has been happening with lobbyists in Washington in 
the past few years and it makes me even more opposed to Thompson's 
candidacy than I would have been if he had not been a Washington lobbyist 
for 20 years.  Have we ever had a President with a background like that? 
I don't think so and I hope it never happens!


> What crimes? He committed no crimes,

Maybe it wasn't illegal to leak information to Nixon about the 
prosecutor's discovery that Nixon had tapes of all of his office meetings, 
but it was despicable conduct.  It also was not illegal to lobby for a law 
that would cost us billions of dollars.  So maybe you should vote for him. 
I mean, he is an actor!  (You still haven't come up with a reason for 
people to vote for him.)


> You might say that he helped to empower the S&Ls to commit crime, but 
> isn't that something we do everyday? Isn't that what we call freedom?

It's not something I do every day, Vern.


> Obviously you did not get it, despite how smart you think you are, you 
> are incapable of getting it because no matter what, if he is a 
> republican, he is bad, if he is a democrat he is good. You are clearly a 
> waste of time to try and talk to.

He's even bad for a Republican.  Is this OK?...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/04/not_all_would_put_a_heroic_sheen_on_thompsons_watergate_role/

Do you think I would want to vote for a Democrat with such credentials? 
He has nothing going for him.


> And Thompson has shown he is corrupt? How so? Because he lobbyed for the 
> S&Ls in the 80s? We know that Hillary has been involved in more than her 
> share of corruption, but where has the Thompson corruption been? The 
> minute the S&L attack comes down on Thompson, the same attack comes down 
> squarely on Hillary. This is why you will never see Thompson attacked on 
> being a lobbyist in the 80s.

What did Hillary do?  Thompson is being attacked for being a lobbyist in 
the '80s.  For one, I'm doing it.  People don't like lobbyists, so it's a 
great idea to attack him on that.  How does attacking Thompson on being a 
lobbyist make Hillary more vulnerable?  If they have something on her, 
they will use it (and probably have been using it for a decade or more).


> > Because you've seen Thompson's face on TV?  (Thompson is a lame 
> > character actor who has never had a leading role in anything on film or 
> > TV.)  Or was it his failure as a Senator to do anything that mattered? 
> > Was it the 20 years lobbying for big corporations?  Or was it that he 
> > leaked information to the criminal Nixon administration while he was 
> > working for the prosecution back in 1973?  Or did you actually like the 
> > S&L scandal?
>
> None of the above. I have seen the guy's voting record, I have read 
> about his stance on issues. I have done the same on all of the other 
> front running candidates including Hilary and Obama. If all of them are 
> to be believed, democrat and republican, then there are two candidates 
> that I think are deserving of my support based on the issues that I care 
> the most about.

OK - what did he vote for that Democrats voted against? and
     who is the second candidate who deserves your support?


> It is not about look for me, if we are to believe what he says, and that 
> is all we have to go on for any candidate, then I like a number of 
> things he claims he stands for. I read his BLOG every chance I get and I 
> agree with what he says in those BLOGs, is he only saying that stuff to 
> get elected? Well he only knows, but since all the other candidates are 
> doing the same thing, then we have to make our decisions on what we 
> know, not what we THINK we know.

What are some of his best blog postings?  Tell me and I'll read them.

I just looked at this one:

http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/a-good-day/

He definitely knows how to promote himself:  Oppose Mexican immigration, 
favor Cuban immigration.  The Mexicans will tend to vote Democratic and 
the Cubans are strongly Republican.  Of course, he also knows that he 
probably can't win the Presidency without Florida, and that to carry 
Florida he will need the Cuban vote.  So he goes on and on about how bad 
Castro is and how good the Cuban immigrants are.  His bit about Cuban 
espionage is pretty intriguing, and a boatload of bullshit:  The idea is 
that we actually have to stop immigrants at the Mexican border or else 
Cuban spies who leak information to Middle-Eastern terrorists will come up 
through Mexico to infiltrate our intelligence networks.  Sure, that will 
happen!  ;-)  You gotta love that one!!


> I would be interested in who you think is the "trustworthy" candidate 
> that you would vote in. Obama is about the only one that would be 
> "trustworthy" on the democratic side, and I am sorry I am too opposed to 
> his politics to vote for him.

What are you opposed to?  I think Clinton and Obama are as they appear to 
be.  I can't imagine that Hillary Clinton has some kind of secret plan.


> Tell us Mike, who is the saviour that you are looking to see elected?

Is Thompson a "saviour?"  I want to elect whoever has the best chance of 
beating the Republican candidate.  The Republican party has proved to me 
that it is dishonorable and should be put to rest.  I'm done with them.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion