Jeri Thompson on The O'Reilly Factor

Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O'Reilly, interviewed Jeri Thompson, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson.  I thought the interview went very well but of course Laura had to bring up the "lazy" charge.  (No criticism of Laura, it's out there and must be addressed.)

Here is what the Editors at National Review had to say about Fred Thompson (my emphasis):

Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.

[...]

It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.

Follow his lead. 

I guess if you can't find anything substantial to criticize, or take the time to offer "clear, conservative ideas", your best bet is to play the lazy card.

Here is the video of Jeri's appearance with Laura:

Comments

[Don]

“(Thompson) is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration” is debatable.

Comparing what Fred Thompson’s campaign website has to say about immigration to what Ron Paul’s says it seems that the primary difference is that Thompson fleshes out his proposals more. In other words he takes many times as many words to say essentially the same thing. I guess you could say that in doing so he is being more specific.

As far as securing the borders is concerned, I wonder how Thompson squares that with the creation of the North American Union which is the brainchild of the Council on Foreign Relations of which Thompson is a member. A couple of months ago he was asked about that by a lady in Texas and Thompson pleaded ignorance, saying he had no idea that the CFR was involved in NAU. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo)

If Thompson wants the vote of a lot of people who are concerned about the sovereignty of the USA he should resign from the CFR and publicly vehemently denounce its agenda of creating the NAU.

[Don]

Sorry about the triple post. It happened when I tried to return to the previous page by clicking the "Back" arrow twice.

[mad_cow]

I've had the same problem with the back arrow. Do you use Firefox? It seems like it started just after the last Firefox update. Hope you don't mind I deleted two of the posts :)

I understand your point about the CFR, I'm not real crazy about that bunch either. I haven't watched the video yet, I will here in a bit, but I wonder how involved he really is? I also believe the power of the people is much stronger than any organization that would try to take away our sovereignty, I might be a little overly optimistic :)

[Don]

Yes, I use Firefox (version 2.0.0.9) but I don’t recall this problem on any other blog or website. Thanks for using your magic eraser.

Maybe Thompson really wasn’t aware when asked about it that the CFR has an agenda of eventually creating a “One World” government, and that the creation of the NAU (which is well underway) by the year 2010 is just one step in that direction which will, for all practical purposes, destroy the sovereignty of the USA. But by now he surely should be, and if he doesn’t agree with that agenda he should publicly denounce it and resign from the CFR, wouldn’t you think?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING !!!

[mad_cow]

Only on my blog? Now that you mention it, I've not had trouble on other blogs either! I would fix it if I had a clue what's causing it, but I don't. What a shocker :)

I think he should address it because there is so much out there about it. I personally think NO elected representative should belong to the CFR. If membership can influence their thinking and therefore their policy decisions it's totally inappropriate. I'm pretty simple-minded...all our representatives need is the Constitution. To remain faithful to the Constitution most government programs and agencies would have to go. In that respect Ron Paul gets it right, however radical it seems to some people. I think Paul has wasted a golden opportunity to make a positive impact and get people thinking about the proper role of the federal government. He just comes across as a little loopy, evidenced by some of the loons his candidacy has attracted.

And a Very Happy Thanksgiving (a little late, I know) To You.

[Don]

“I personally think NO elected representative should belong to the CFR.”

I agree, but it’s not gonna’ happen. The CFR is instrumental in who gets elected to offices it cares about. If you want to see a list of its members go to http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html#A and poke around through the alphabet. The list doesn’t include past members, most of whom are now deceased, but if it did you’d recognize a lot of their names. Take a look at this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations:
Notable historical members
* Conrad Black (International Advisory Board member)
* McGeorge Bundy
* William Bundy
* C. Douglas Dillon
* Allen Dulles
* John Foster Dulles
* President Gerald Ford
* Sergei Karaganov (International Advisory Board member)
* George Kennan
* Robert Lovett
* John J. McCloy
* Charles Peter McColough
* Robert McNamara
* Paul Nitze
* Nelson Rockefeller
* John D. Rockefeller 3rd
* Felix Rohatyn
* Eugene Rostow
* Walt Rostow
* Dean Rusk
* Arthur Schlesinger
* Strobe Talbott
* Albert Wohlstetter
* Roberta Wohlstetter
* Paul Warburg
* Caspar Weinberg

Paul just hasn’t had the platform to get his message out, but as the campaign progresses and he becomes better known he will be able to get more of it out for public awareness and discussion. Rarely does he get to discuss the nuances and details of foreign policy, and show just how much he knows about its political economy, the winners and losers, and the intricacies behind the geopolitics. Scott Horton's interview of Paul a little while back reveals some of his knowledge and thoughtfulness. He's an expert on these issues, someone to consult independent of his political ambitions. His Congressional experience and commitment to constantly read and educate himself show through in his written works, but rarely does he get to go into detail on radio. Check out Scott's interview @ http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2007/08/17/antiwar-radio-rep-ron-paul-2/. (Click one of the play buttons at the bottom of the page to hear the audio.) I wish more media people gave him a chance to discuss foreign policy at length, rather than asking the same old questions about which Republican he'll support next November or whether he'll run with a third party.