This is PRIME for photoshopping:
Posted on 03/29/2007 6:58:58 AM PDT by meg88
For the past few days, movement "conservatives" and GOP cheerleaders have been ecstatic that Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, may form an exploratory committee to seek the GOP nomination for president. "Now we'll have a conservative in there," said one person, who, I assume, has no idea what a real conservative is.
There already are two fine conservative candidates seeking the nomination: Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And Fred Thompson does not even come close measuring up to them.
Fred Thompson is a neocon globalist.
First and foremost, let's look at immigration. A third-world invasion of the USA is taking place, and it is up to patriots to stop it.
As Jean Raspail taught us in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest conservative novel ever written," we can fight back and reverse the invasion, or we can watch the West be destroyed.
Although Fred Thompson is tougher than McCain and Giuliani on border enforcement, which isn't saying much seeing how they line up with Barack Obama, he had a rather lackluster record on immigration while in the Senate.
As one commentator notes: "Overall, Americans for Better Immigration gives [Thompson] a career grade of C; on chain migration, C; visa lottery, C-; reducing unnecessary visas, F; on reducing asylum fraud, C-; on reducing amnesties, D; and on interior enforcement, C+. Although he was tough on border control, he was lacking in almost every other area." [1]
Fred Thompson also supports affirmative action, and ideologically worships free trade, regardless how much it harms America. Historically, conservatives have opposed free trade, but Thompson, like others, has been "neoconned" into backing it.
He furthermore is a "fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the largest neocon think-tanks, which demonstrates where his true loyalty lies. If you did not receive the Burkean memo, the transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. There is not a single thing conservative about the membership of AEI. They are neocon / neoliberal globalists.
Why are neoncons backing Thompson? Ideally, being ex-Trotskyites themselves, neocons would prefer a liberal candidate, like McCain, Giuliani or Romney. But they see that conservatives deplore these candidates, and now are going to try to peddle Fred Thompson, who is just socially conservative enough and just tough enough on the borders, even if it is feigned, to woo naive GOP voters. But let's hope this nefarious neocon plot fails.
Let's pray that the more real conservatives learn about Fred Thompson, the more unacceptable he will appear
Who is Basil Harrington? I honestly never heard of him. Is he one of those conservatives who's always leaving the GOP?
Ron Who?
Tom Who?
There are lots of fine conservatives, especially non-politician conservatives, but that doesn't mean they can win.
Fred can win, and probably by ten or fifteen points like he did in Tennessee.
Can you say "mandate?"
No, I ain't, and will assume you're joking in saying that I am joking.
We have a good number of them here on FR, but half of them are probably interns for Pelosi posting from the Rayburn Bldg.
Here is what Thompson has to say about immigration.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU=
Southern Exposure
By Fred Thompson
Editor's note: Click here to listen to the original radio commentary this transcript is based on.
We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.
It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.
We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.
I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:
hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.
My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
That was an excellent analogy and sadly true. I have liberal relatives (life-long Democrats) who think I lost my mind when I left the comfortable safety of the liberal/socialist plantation.
Most folks couldn't pick out Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo out of a line-up. I know I couldn't! Even folks who don't give a hoot in hell about politics, and that is the VAST majority of potential voters in this country, would know who Fred Thompson is.
You may not like him, but some do, and will continue to push their favorite, just like others push theirs. My hope is that ALL the candidates' views will be published in a truthful manner, NOT assigning nefarious motives, where there are none.
Being Pro Affirmative action is not necessarily the same as being for quotas and forcing folks to do what they otherwise might not do. Some folks can't see the distinction, and want to assume the negative.
That's the thing. Saying Thompson doesn't have 'executive' experience and comparing that to Rudy is highly questionable. If some of the folks on FR would look more closely at Rudy's record as mayor of NYC, they'd probably agree with many of us that he is indeed NOT a Republican. I give Rudy all the credit in the world on 9-11, but his overall record speaks for itself.
This article has also been published on the Puffington Host and several other liberal sites. It seems the paleocons and the liberals fear Fred in equal measures. The story of the three bears comes to mind...
Please tell us who your ideal candidate is at this time. I'd like to compare the differences.
Those of us who are supporting FDT are doing so because of a number of reasons, not one issue, but a whole collection of past experiencce in the Beltway and the ability to communicate. So far, none of those in the race now appeal to a very broad spectrum of the conservative base. FDT is not perfect, but, by a huge margin, he is much more acceptable and a candidate to be FOR, instead of accepting as our 'only hope'.
He also voted against one affirmative action bill. Like I said, a mixed bag.
meg88 wrote: "Actually, a Rudy/Thompson 08 ticket would be the best thing going right now."
No, I don't Fred would allow a liberal to run with him on his ticket. He'll probably ask J.C. Watts to be his running mate.
To be more precise, he's a Libertarian.
From Wikipedia: Ron Paul joined the Libertarian Party in 1987 as a lifetime member, a status which he appears never to have renounced. Though only elected to Congress as a Republican, Paul remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and has addressed its national convention as recently as 2004.[5]
Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz said that thousands of libertarians across the United States donated money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71.4 percent of contributions to Paul's coffers come from outside his home state of Texas. [6] Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004 and 96.8% in 2006) from individuals. [7][8]
Paul is also a former national chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.[9]
Political views of Ron Paul Ron Paul professes a Constitutionalist (limited government), libertarian ideology, and opposes presidential and judicial autonomy.
***********
No thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.