|
|
|
January 14, 2008
Fred, Federalism, and Medical Marijuana
Which is going to lead next to some rampant speculation. Fred and Hillary were both Watergate lawyers. This is a fact. Here is an interesting Youtube on Watergate that asks what did the Mafia get out of its alleged connections to the White House? Here is my theory. If the Mafia had connections to the Whitehouse perhaps the drug war got ramped up as a favor to them. When the drug war ramped up the country went dry for about 6 months after Nixon "closed the borders" and then Thai Stick flooded in for about a decade or more afterwards. IMO we are screwed no matter who wins. Things are not what they seem. In any case I still like Fred on most issues. However, I think he knows where the skeletons are buried and because of his Watergate connections would be a formidable opponent to Hillary. Bill ran his campaign in '92 as a "nod, wink" anti-drug war guy and then ramped up the drug war to heights even staunch Republican's couldn't have imagined. There was something fishy there. Very fishy. posted by Simon on 01.14.08 at 12:04 AM
Comments
My problems with Fred start with his much vaunted background: everyone points to his Watergate work and previous and then glosses over his Senate work which did not hold the Clinton Administration accountable during the Chinagate scandal. The threat by an outside group to expose Republican fund raising problems while that went on, coinciding with Thompson's ending of the hearings and going to 'legislative remedies' without even identifying the source of the problem does not speak well of the man. If he couldn't stand up for his job and duty *then*, even if it hurt some Republicans like Arlen Specter, then just how will the man handle a Clinton in the Senate and those exact, same organizations? Not to speak of someone like A-jad or Putin... I have seen no clear reason for him to do so, beyond 'frustration at low level witnesses to testify', and *no one* actually dug into the Chinagate problem fully and looked at Red Chinese influence in US elections. Fred Thompson looks to be likeable as an individual, but his post-Watergate investigative credentials and determination to do his constitutional duty as a Senator leave me less than impressed. That is a common failing in Congress, which is why I am voting for no Congresscritter for higher office. Which Fred Thompson will we get? The 1974 version or the 1997 version? The voters deserve to know why he stopped his investigation and did not do his job of holding the Executive accountable for such activities as was alleged in Chinagate. ajacksonian · January 15, 2008 06:59 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Jeri Thompson Speaks
• Coloreds Only • Starship • "Congrats, senator, you've just lost a supporter." • McCain -- worth another look? • His Position Is Very Clear • Oscar Levant On The Piano • Fred, Federalism, and Medical Marijuana • Doomed and Damned • The Uniters
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Interesting. I notice he said "there are federalism issues involved" and he did make an honest attempt to at least answer the man's question.
Contrast with Mitt Romney....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A