Posted on 06/23/2007 7:19:15 AM PDT by etradervic
After John East, a stalwart conservative from North Carolina, entered the U.S. Senate in 1981, wags began referring to Jesse Helms as "the liberal senator from the Tar Heel state." We are reminded of this tale as Republican activists rush to encourage, if not yet fully embrace, the presidential candidacy of Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee. The Republican base is evidently unimpressed or uninspired (or both) by the conservative credentials of the top three Republicans (John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani) seeking the 2008 presidential nomination. Mr. Thompson's most-oft-cited conservative credential is his 86.1 percent lifetime (1995-2002) Senate vote rating compiled by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the organization that many rightly consider a leading arbiter of conservatism. In the same relative sense that Mr. Helms could be considered North Carolina's "liberal senator," Mr. Thompson's ACU rating would qualify him to be "the liberal senator from Tennessee" during his eight-year stint. Bill Frist, who defeated Democratic incumbent Jim Sasser, was elected to the Senate from Tennessee the same year (1994) as Mr. Thompson, who won the seat vacated in 1993 by then-Vice President Gore. During the eight years they represented Tennessee together, Mr. Frist compiled an ACU rating of 89.3 percent, making Mr. Thompson "the liberal senator from the Volunteer state."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Typo alert: That’s 2005, not 1985.
Gotcha - Fred T is a flip-flopper. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Fred was one of those who voted to let Bill Clinton off the hook during impeachment. Fred voted for McCain-Feingold. And Fred had a pro-choice moment in his past.
At least Romney admitted he was “wrong”.
The bedrock principles of the party might be embedded in states’ rights, but there are indeed national issues.
Torts is one of those issues. As is the military. Venue shopping will continue until national reform is enacted. That’s a fact our transit system has made inevitable.
There’s also the problem of which state’s laws apply to a particular case. Lawyers, not suprisingly, like to export the most punative to apply to a particular case. Federal law would effectively limit this practice.
You say the way to fix this is by electing better legislatures, but what are you supposed to do if your company keeps getting sued in Massachusetts or California? Good luck with those legislatures, I’m telling you....
And there’s also the issue of there being federal and state courts... If you don’t reform at the federal level, guess what those state reforms are going to mean? Precious little, as if I’m a lawyer, I’m bringing my case to a federal court if given the chance (and typically, cases can be tried in both).
“In short, what is not to like about the man?”
He isn’t perfect but he’s great and he’s the ONLY shot we’ve got!!
But you must understand - a lot of FReepers drank the Hunter kool-aid early on - and are scared that FDT might be a *gasp* free-trader and we can’t have that!!!!!
That’s a mystery for the ages.
Just because the NRA endorses something does not make it right. The NRA often supports things I would not and fails to oppose things I would. The latest example is HR 2640 which was sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). I honestly do not know what these people are thinking sometimes. I am a life member but I think they were wrong on this one and cannot understand why they did not oppose it. Gun Owners of America strongly opposes this bill. The NRA-ILA sent me an email on 6/15 telling me it was a good thing. I agree with GOA on this and wish the NRA would not work with nuts like McCarthy on anything. The point is that just because the NRA supports something, that is not an automatic endorsement of it for me because they have dome some very stupid stuff in the past.
Well, why not list whatever you think is a fair and representative sampling?
Yes, it’s early.
However, Hunter has yet to break 1%. If he were actually going to make any headway, it would have happened.
He’ll be Thompson’s Secretary of Defense, IMHO.
“I don’t know”
Those of us who have been reading his writings know this, and we tend to end up as enthusiastic supporters as a result of that reading.
You can’t support the RKBA and oppose “Assault Weapons.”
>>Yeah, well Reagan and Bush had the same flaw — so he is in some good company.
Leaving aside that the AWB had nothing to do with Reagan, this merely tells that Mitt supporters don’t care about the RKBA, as obviously Mitt doesn’t either. Telling me Mitt is as bad on guns as the worst moments of the GOP is hardly a campaign song. And Bush I arguable lost his re-election because of his moronic support of the import ban. You think that gun owners took Perot more seriously after that?
>>Gov. Romney: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I’m not sure what the relevance is. And, that’s what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. You know, if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider. But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.
He seems to duck the question, and settle on the principle that you can contemplate a ban based on what gun was used by a criminal that day, and the VT shootings don’t help ban AWs.
He then craps on the 2nd Amendment by using “police at risk” for justifying a ban (that’s how the AWB has always been justified, and the mantra of the police state).
And machine guns are legal, and the most useful military weapons based on how soldiers are armed, and therefore the most useful to an armed citizenry acting as a bulwark against a standing army.
He sounds like EVERY DEMOCRAT who is up for reelection in a state less liberal than Massachusetts. And he has not clue about the basis for the 2nd amendment, just lip service while most of his words belie his hostility to an armed citizenry.
(EXCLUSIVE: Townhall.com sits down with Gov. Romney, April 20, 2007)
You probably aren’t terribly exicited with Gov. Romney’s answer, but he didn’t say he would sign a federal AWB and chose instead to warn against the slow erosion of 2nd Amendment rights. That can give us some hope that he will listen to all sides of the argument and is open to persuasion on a subject -— just like he was on stem cells.
>>The record shows that every gun bill signed by Gov. Romney was endorsed by the NRA and/or the Gun Owners’ Action League in Massachusetts.
Yet he cheerily abetted the oppressors by saying things like in my tagline. (And never repudiating it.)
If you want to hear from someone (a Democrat) who actually had a clue about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, Google “Humphrey Gun Quote.”
f you don’t reform at the federal level, guess what those state reforms are going to mean? Precious little, as if I’m a lawyer, I’m bringing my case to a federal court if given the chance (and typically, cases can be tried in both).
Fred the Federalist is spot on here, too.
I am not voting for Fred...get over it.
Why you want some divorced hound dog in the White House is beyond me.
that's a deal killer
LOL, thank you Nostradamus. Duncan Hunter is strong with his stances, strong with LEADERSHIP, strong in articulating and strong in not taking sh*t from the media and Demonrats, but due to the mindset you and people like you seem to want to judge on who is known by the public and who you think is a ‘sure thing’ for electability, this is not based on who people think is the best but who they THINK can win. When Fred turns up and has to actually campaign and deal with a long cycle and a vicious opponent, I think you have been warned. Fred Thompson is not the best candidate and not the best opportunity to get elected no matter what polls say NOW. Campaigns change everything. Hype only goes so far. And I would not hold up hope that Fred would make that inspiring and reliable a ‘conservative’ once elected. I do know Hunter far outshines anything Thompson has ever done in his public service.
The biggest item of all was the huge PDB. Others, Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind, the bloated Highway Bill of '05...
I guess all that will remain to be seen, and will work itself out during the campaign season. But if Duncan Hunter can’t excite enough people with his ideas AND the way he presents himself, to support him, frankly it doesn’t matter how conservative he is, he won’t get elected. If it were only conservatives voting, he might have a better shot, but he has to be elected by a majority of ALL the voters, and he has to convince everyone else of his electability, as well. He has another 7 months or so before the first Republican primary, but remember, polls are of the general public, not just Republicans, and though they may not be perfect they are kinda like the general election with regards to voter choices.
“he is not perfect.”
That is true. But he is, as you point out, pretty darned good, and he is the only Republican who can win next year. His devotion to federalism is IMHO second to none, including Reagan. And, if a President is really committed to reducing the power of the federal leviathan (which means all three branches), returning power to the states is the necessary precondition.
It must be a coordinated approach, where the judiciary restricts congressional and other federal involvement in areas not enumerated in the Constitution, the President vetoes excessive spending and abstains from inserting the Executive Branch into areas reserved to the states and to the people, and mobilizes his party in Congress to use legislative tools (e.g.filibusters) to kill federal legislation that infringes on the prerogatives of the states. The Bully pulpit is the key, and I believe Fred will use it to great effect.
It is the ancient principle of subsidiarity (matters are best handled by the smallest organizational unit practicable), and it will work again if we get a President willing to try it and to persevere with it.
Let’s take stock of our nation’s current position:
1) Abroad, we have hostile Moslems, Koreans, Chinese, and Russians, plus protracted unwon wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear madman in Iran.
2) At home, we have undefended borders, imminent huge tax increases, looming bankruptcy for social security/medicare, ignoramuses of various stripes trying to destroy international trade and industrial civilization, leftists and bluenoses preparing to suppress talk radio and the internet, and a GOP president who wants Mexican citizens to vote in US elections so that the Democrats win.
Given the above crises, what in your selection of candidates do you think important? You think important whether a candidate is divorced. Perhaps, you confuse marital failures in your own life with national political problems.
P.S. Divorced Ronald Reagan wasn’t too bad a president.
"Giuliani included?"
Not me, nor McCain or that idiot from Texas. Anyone else. If any of these three should win the GOP nomination, I will vote for a third party conservative if one is running, otherwise for Mickey Mouse.
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.