Put ‘em to this test

Choosing a person for the office of president of the United States is the most difficult decision that a citizen of America must make. The person I chose is of high quality in character, integrity, wisdom, knowledge, education, experience, and a love for our Creator, [the people] and for our nation—[some]one of obvious moral and ethical character … including unimpaired soundness in [such] qualities as honesty, reliability, faithfulness and maturity. And, of course, wisdom. Knowledge is also a requirement, and that is acquired from tried-and-true hard work, using the tools of a fine education and experience from the trails of life. … And finally, love. This person must have an abundance of pure love for mankind, which exudes caring.

I put all of these things together, and only one candidate fits my requirements: Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson.

When [Thompson] was asked to enter the race, he laid out his personal and political credentials. He is the only candidate who provided this information beforehand, willingly. He provided a plan for every hot-button issue on the table of government management and affairs ([and] this information … has not changed since).

So, eliminating all of the candidates (both sides) by their lack of the above requirements, I reached my inevitable decision. … I simply used good, common sense to make my vote mean what it is supposed to mean… . Sen. Thompson will be very professional, for he is capable of handling any situation, including a little stomping if necessary. With our current terrorist situation, [that] may come in handy. So will our Second Amendment, which he does not oppose.

It is my hope that you, too, will use my guidelines in your choice for president. If so, Sen. Thompson will be one of the finest presidents we will have ever had, hands down!

—  Joyce Vaughan Byars
Asheville

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

16 thoughts on “Put ‘em to this test

  1. Frederick Paxson

    FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

    During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

    I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at http://www.fred08.com . I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

    Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

    Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

    For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

    During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

    As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

    As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

    Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

    I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

    Please help Fred win in Iowa:
    https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

  2. I am, also, for Fred Thompson. He’s the only one running on either side who really seems to it … ‘it’ being what America is all about.

  3. travelah

    Plus, he played one on TV… no, that was super commander on an aircraft carrier … no, he was president right? :)

  4. Frederick Paxson

    traveleh:

    Fred was a U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, was counsel to the Watergate Committee that brought down a crooked president, won a case that brought down a crooked governor in Tennessee, and served in the U.S. Senate. Not only has Fred played important, powerful men on film and television, HE IS an important, powerful man that should be our next president! Re-read my comments above to see why…

  5. Dionysis

    It appears that the Fred Thompson love-fest may be passionate, but short-lived. His poll numbers keep falling. Whatever attributes some see him as sharing with Reagan are not resonating with people. Odds are he will be announcing his official pull-out from the race within a week, maybe within days.
    Perhaps he will then have time to update his knowledge of world affairs, including the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists. In addition, he’ll no longer have to beg an audience for applause, as he did three months ago.

  6. Dionysis

    Oh, and not to heap too much on Thompson as he fades back into televisionland, but he certainly was no hero during the Watergate hearings. As the Washington Post (along with many other papers) disclosed last summer:

    “WASHINGTON — The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight — asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system — he telephoned Nixon’s lawyer…

    Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, “At That Point in Time,” Thompson said he acted with “no authority” in divulging the committee’s knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon’s resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team…”

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

  7. Rob Close

    yeah, Fred thought that those tapes would exonerate Nixon – he actually thought tricky dick was innocent! and by mentioning their existence, he submitted the final nail in the coffin of that presidency. hilariously ironic. and he was acting as a mole to save the president there – i hope not to see any spin that he ‘helped take down a corrupt president’ when his motivations were…wrong.

  8. dickyfauge

    Lets see hear, army intel=oxymoron,Fred is a better actor than reagan, reagan was suffering from alstimers his last four years in office…so if fred is reaganest that means he has a bad memory and is lapdog puppet for corporate interests. hes got my vote!!!

  9. travelah

    Frederick, he should have lots of time now to thank you for your support.

  10. Hopefully

    Travelah, I’m genuinely perplexed, are you siding with Dick on this one? I mean, I think Fred is very Reaganesque!

  11. born and bread

    errr, I am still stumped as to why Reagan “was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under.”

    seems like a statement like that needs some qualifications.

  12. Nam Vet

    President Ronald Reagan WAS the most inspiring leader we have had in a very long time. We need another president like him in 2008. He was a statesman who inspired us to be the best we could be. He was the best of America.

  13. Hopefully

    Kinder, gentler machine gun hand! I remember reading about Iran-Contra. People thought he was lying when he said he didn’t remember, nowadays, knowing he had alzheimer’s at that time, we can believe him. He was just another bad actor, making sure his friends in the military industrial complex made their blood money.(sounds like bush)

  14. ingarageland

    Sadly enough, I have to agree with you nam vet, that pathetic old crook is the best we have had lately. He would never have gotten us into nam or iraq. He was too smart for that.

  15. Hooman Majd

    It’s a Fake

    by Hooman Majd
    Posted January 9, 2008

    The Pentagon’s version of the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning, involving U.S. Navy warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats is, at the very least highly suspicious. On Tuesday, the Navy released video footage and an audiotape to back its claims that the Iranian boats acted in a threatening and provocative manner, but neither the video nor the audio are particularly convincing as proof that Iran had hostile intentions. The video, which shows what is claimed are Iranian boats speeding around U.S. ships, doesn’t show any of the boats hurtling directly towards any of the navy ships, nor does it show what the Pentagon claimed the Iranians then did, namely dropped “white boxes” in the water. (I would have opened fire at those, wouldn’t you?) The audio tape is even less convincing, mainly because the person speaking doesn’t have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran’s military. (The tape is also separate from any video.) Any Iranian can immediately identify Persian-accented English, particularly if the speaker has had little contact with the West, as is the case with Revolutionary Guardsmen and sailors. Iranians, you see, have difficulty with two consonants such as “p” and “l” next to each other; even Iranians who have lived in America for years will often pronounce “please” as “peh-leeze”, or in this case, “explode” as “exp-eh-lode”. On the tape, “explode” is pronounced perfectly, albeit as if the speaker was a villain addressing a superhero. Further, it is unimaginable, given what is known about the Revolutionary Guards (and I have met many), that one of its corps would speak in a such a manner, even if the accent were correctly Persian.

    The fact that the Iranian foreign ministry downplayed the encounter as routine and minor, and that the Revolutionary Guards, not known for their moderation, actually denied the U.S. version of events, is curious. Iran, which is usually keen to exploit its image as a fearless foe of the U.S., would ordinarily relish the opportunity to show that it can be a menace to the great superpower, particularly if, as the encounter shows, the U.S. does little to counter that menace. (Khomeini’s words, “the U.S. cannot do a damn thing”, are still emblazoned on the walls of the former American Embassy in Tehran.) Iranian patrol boats do indeed, as Iran freely admits, check on ships that enter the Persian Gulf, in this case only three miles outside its territorial waters, much as one would expect them to do (and as the U.S. Coast Guard would undoubtedly do if a foreign fleet of warships cruised within fifteen miles of say, Miami Beach), but apart from the arrest of the British sailors last year, there is hardly ever even a sharp exchange of words. At the risk of sounding like (and as I’m sure I will be accused of being) an apologist for the Islamic Republic, the encounter with the U.S. Navy as described by the Pentagon just doesn’t ring true. Coming as it did on the eve of President Bush’s visit to the Middle East, the encounter as described is doubly suspicious.

    The Bush administration seems to have finally settled on a schizophrenic Iran policy; a policy that requires it to on the one hand send conciliatory messages to its foe, if for no other reason than to keep Iraq from imploding, and the other hand maintain pressure on Iran, threatening it from time to time and raising with a domestic audience as well as with the Arab states the specter of a bogeyman run amok in the world’s most dangerous region. The policy actually makes sense, in some regards, as Mr. Bush would like nothing more than a stable Iraq in his legacy, something that is impossible without Iran’s help (and something that would give a boost to any Republican candidate, particularly Mr. McCain, in the fall), but he also doesn’t want to see Iranian power grow too much, especially now that U.S.-allied Arab countries are falling over themselves to appease Iran. The specter of a dangerous Iran, one that could threaten the U.S., is also important for the Republican candidates, robbed as they were in December of their favorite villain with the release of the NIE report that suggested the Iranians were not, in fact, developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Bush can try to use the Persian Gulf incident to his advantage in his meetings with Arab leaders this week, and domestically it will play well, but the Arabs will unlikely be fooled by what appears to be a poorly concocted scenario. They, too, have hard-to-mimic accents when they speak English.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html

  16. dickyfauge

    Just like that stuff that started vietnam. By the way reagon was a great great president. He pulled us out an economic depresion. He eliminated the defecit and helped the civil rights. And he defeated the russians.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.