Should Conservatives Look at Thompson’s Record or His Rhetoric?

Townhall ^ | 06/28/2007 | Janice Shaw Crouse

[asparagus]

His core beliefs didn't change, but how he balanced them against each other did as he learned more.

Using the same standard that others on this site are using on Romney, how is this not also a flip-flop?? Just for the record, if Thompson is the nominee, I will support him, however, I don't think a Thompson candidacy will be a winner, mainly due to age, energy, and experience.

[asparagus]

Sorry, I misread your slogan. I thought sake was “sale”. As a lobbyist, it makes more sense that way.

[BillyBoy]

Sure. Link and bill numbers:

Fred voted YES to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification. (Abraham Amendment to S.1664)

Fred voted YES on maintaining the chain migration system. (Simpson Amendment to S.1664)

Fred voted YES on removing higher fines for businesses which hire ILLEGAL aliens (committee consideration of S.1664)

Fred voted YES to grant amnesty to nearly one million ILLEGAL aliens from Nicaragua, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. ( Mack Amendment to S.1156.)

Fred voted NO on including worker safeguards in H-1B bill (S.1723)

Fred voted YES for foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud provisions. (S.2045)

IMMIGRATION SCORECARD OF SENATOR FRED THOMPSON
Reduce Enticement for Illegal Immigration AMNESTIES
Grade:

SOURCE:
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

[HitmanLV]

I vote for Rhetoric.

[Admin Moderator]

Earlier today, I deleted your reply, which was not the intended target. Sorry about the mistake, and #8 is now restored.

[BillyBoy]

>> The only vote I’ve seen mentioned was one dealing with Cubans that got 99 votes in the Senate. What have you got to back it up? <<

Plenty.

See post #63 for a list of pro-illegal alien votes Fred cast, of which the amnesty for ILLEGAL Niacarguaians and Cubans (that I presume you are referring to) is only a TINY part of it. Fred caved on going after illegals numerous times. Fred's LIFETIME Senate ratings (1994-2000) on immigration include:

Reduce CHAIN MIGRATION Grade:
Reduce Fraud for REFUGEE & ASYLUM :
Reduce Unnecessary Visas for FOREIGN WORKERS :
Reduce Enticement for Illegal Immigration AMNESTIES :

Here is Fred's stated position on ILLEGAL immigration as recently as last year. These are his own words:

"I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship"
-- Fred Thompson , Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06

Is that direct enough? Fred said deporting illegal aliens "is not going that happen" and we should "work out a deal" where they can get the ol' path towards citizenship. How is that any different than what Lindsey "this is not amnesty" Graham is saying this year? I'd really like to know.

Add the fact that Fred was a huge McCain supporter in the Senate and co-chaired McCain's campaign for President in Tennessee, and Fred's "record" in the Senate is no different than Lindsey's.

You can argue that you believe his 11th hour converstion on immigration to be sincere, but there is no doubt Fred's CURRENT rhetoric does NOT match is record in the Senate. Fred's voting record was certainly nothing like Tom Tancredo.

I choose not to believe Fred's "new" position on immigration, because, as Tancredo said, I believe in political conversions, but I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damacus, not on the road to Des Moines.

"I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship"
-- Fred Thompson , Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06

[BillyBoy]

" Various study commissions have found that the willingness of U.S. businesses to hire illegal aliens is the No. 1 incentive for foreign workers to become illegal aliens here. But Sen. Fred Thompson voted with a 10-8 majority in the Judiciary Committee to remove the higher fines from the 1996 legislation against illegal immigration"

There's an example of a vote that wasn't anywhere near 99-1. If Fred had been for enforcing the laws back then, his one vote would have made a huge difference in committee.

Fred was part of problem leading to the "current" immigration mess today.

[IMRight]

Is that direct enough? Fred said deporting illegal aliens "is not going that happen"

And deporting 10-12 million illegals isn't going to happen. That's a simple statement of fact. Some of us might wish it were otherwise, but that's not reality. Is that direct enough?

How is that any different than what Lindsey "this is not amnesty" Graham is saying this year? I'd really like to know.

Simple. "Amnesty" is forgiving prior illegal activity with little or no consequence. The current bill fits IMO, but that doesn't mean it's the only option... just as supporting life in prison for a particular crime isn't "amnesty" just because someone else thinks the correct punishment is the death penalty.

You could work out a system where the punishment for immigrating illegally was severe enough that only those who genuinely love this country and want to respect its laws would go through it. Tighten employment enforcement enough and those who were unwilling to go through whatever "process" was developed... and who now had a hard time getting a job... would "deport" themselves (and take their "chain" with them.

As for those phony "grades", they're nonsense... and show a deep misunderstanding of the legislative process in the senate. All the votes I looked up from their website were party-line votes that seemed to have a good purpose.

Let's look at an example. Was the 1996 legislation a generally "good" thing? It barely passed. Many of those amendments were "poison pills" placed there to switch a handful of votes on the final measure... thus killing it. To keep that from happening, the party killed things you would otherwise expect them to support - to preserve the final bill.

Let's take this most recent victory. You agree that it needed to die a painful death, right? Notice that some of the people who voted "no" didn't do so because the measure was amnesty? (Do they suddenly get credit for opposing amnesty when they would have happily voted for a worse bill?) What would you think of a Republican who cast a vote for an amendment that you would otherwise hate... but which cause the overall legislation to now become unacceptable to one or two other senators? He votes "correctly" on the cloture vote... but now he's got a nagging "bad" vote on some amendment... is that really something to use on a "grade"???

Also... I note that even this spun "grade" is better than the other legitimate Republican candidates and, of course, Hillary and Obama. Moreover... he received an "A" on border control... the single biggest part of this overall issue.

Lastly... you've just got to know that people who spin essentially unanimous votes (or votes that are unanimous within the party), aren't trying to play fair.

[IMRight]

There's an example of a vote that wasn't anywhere near 99-1. If Fred had been for enforcing the laws back then, his one vote would have made a huge difference in committee.

10-8 would almost certainly have been a party-line vote. Are you going to pretend that all the republicans on that committee were against "enforcing the laws" while all the Democrats were anti-illegal patriots? Or will you recognize that there's more to it than the simple vote?

[mnehring]

How about a legitimate source. The NumbersUSA record has been discredited a long time ago because they try to confuse the line between legal and illegal immigration (for example, most of those are for LEGAL immigration issues) others, like S1664 (which is most of these) are procedural votes (things like move to and from committee) and not votes on the actual bill. At that, S1664 did not even get to the Senate to vote, it was killed in committee.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V907&can_id=53292

Another, S1156, Thompson didn't vote to grant amnesty, he voted to table the bill for a vote. I.E. Another procedural vote, not a vote on the actual bill. At that, Thompson's vote on the actual amendment, 1156 was Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00265

A LOT of bad, unresearched info like this is floating all over the internet.. It is a good idea to double check anything before you post.

[mnehring]

Politicalmom,
Can you ping the Thompson list on #70, some ammo against those trying to twist Thompson’s immigration record. (please also add me to the ping list, thanks.)

[ElectricStrawberry]

You realize that Hunter, the guy you’re leaning toward, voted “yes” on McCain-Feingold, right?

You realize that THAT is a bold-faced lie, right?

Click that link to see the roll-call vote on that HR 2356 bill. Scroll down to the 189 "NOES" and check the 20th one from the top in the middle column. THAT name looks familiar. Hunter..."NO".

I don't mind DUmmies lying to me, but I expect more from FR.

[Josh Painter]

"...his solidly conservative voting record in the Senate."

Conservative enough to win the GOP nomination. Not too conservative to kick the crap outta the Hildabeast in the general election.

Let's roll!



Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference

Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource

[Josh Painter]

what’s up wrote: “It makes me think that Fred, despite his populist conservatism, is far from being a tough fiscal conservative.”

*

Although his towering 6-foot 5-inch frame, basso voice and commanding presence gave him star status on the Hill, Thompson chose the unglamorous work of trying to expose waste and reform the federal government.

He put heat on federal agencies by holding hearings on mismanagement and by asking them to tote up the improper payments they made each year — about $20 billion altogether.

The waste is far from stopped, but agencies are now required by law to disclose their annual overpayments, a practice that is credited for trimming the Department of Health and Human Services’ erroneous payments from $12.1 billion in 2005 to $10.8 billion in 2006.

Paul C. Light, a New York University professor and leading expert on government reform, said, “I consider him to be one of the most dedicated overseers of the executive branch of the last 25 years.”

http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2007/05/11/BC_THOMPSON_RECORD11_COX.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=0

*

“On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.”

http://race42008.com/2007/03/24/fiscally-fisking-the-2008-contenders

*

In 1999, Senator Thompson joined the Senate Finance Committee, where he worked to cut taxes and reform our Social Security and Medicare programs so they will be there for future generations. Thompson was a member of a bi-partisan group of senators endorsing a plan to reform Social Security by cutting payroll taxes and allowing workers to invest in personal savings accounts, while at the same time making structural reforms to the program to ensure its solvency for future retirees.

Fred Thompson also teamed up with Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) to push for a biennial budget. This bipartisan measure would end the yearly budget battle in Congress and replace it with a less repetitive process that enacts a two-year budget every other year.

“We create a lot of expensive agencies and programs, and then we pretty much turn our backs on them while they run for years and years,” Thompson said. “A biennial budget would give us time to delve into what’s working and what’s not - and it would also encourage members of Congress to stay in closer contact with constituents by freeing up more time for them to spend in their home states.”

Fred Thompson went to Washington with a basic belief that the federal government should be smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. To make that goal a reality, he has worked for and achieved a string of significant reforms, becoming what USA Today called, “a leader on a range of clean-up Washington issues.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20021020104429/thompson.senate.gov/accomplishments/national.htm

*

[Josh Painter]

BillyBoy wrote: “Fred was part of problem leading to the “current” immigration mess today.”

So was Ronald Reagan, who signed the 1986 amnesty into law. But I don’t hold it against him beecause I know Reagan, once he realized he made a mistake, would not have repeated it. Same goes for Fred Thompson.

It’s a real hoot watching supporters of Fred’s GOP opponents impotently trying to stop the Fred Thompson tsunami. You can’t do it.

[Josh Painter]

ellery wrote: You realize that Hunter, the guy you’re leaning toward, voted ‘yes’ on McCain-Feingold, right?”

That’s not quite accurate, Ellery. Hunter voted against McCain-Feingold, but then he flip-flopped and voted for 527s.

Reference: Federal Election Campaign Act amendment “527 Reform Act”; Bill H.R.513 ; vote number 2006-088 on Apr 5, 2006.

[eastsider]

Good post.

[mnehring]

Sturm, See post #70. I’ve shown that most of what Billy Boy is posting is incorrect at best and blatantly misleading at worst.

[ellery]

Ooo, thanks for the clarification.

[untrained skeptic]

Using the same standard that others on this site are using on Romney, how is this not also a flip-flop??

I don't worry too much about others on this site or anywhere else calling things a flip-flop.

I do think that even subtle changes in stance on issues gives us some insight into the thought process of candidates, and I'm not suggesting ignoring them, but I don't get overly excited about rhetoric about flip-flops unless it is obvious that the candidate simply changes their stated views according to their audience.

I don't think a Thompson candidacy will be a winner, mainly due to age, energy, and experience.

Fair enough. I haven't personally taken an in depth look at Romney at this point, so I don't have a solidly formed opinion on him, however I will admit that his religion is an issue for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him if he wins the nomination, but it makes it less likely I will vote for him in the primary.