Posted on 06/28/2007 11:46:13 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Total BS to the core. PRESIDENT FRED THOMPSON... queers, steers and dims had better get used to it!!!!!!!!!!!!
LLS
“... his 1994-2006 ‘record’ on this [amnesty] issue.”
How can Thompson have a “record” on amnesty from 2001 to 2006 when he was out of electoral politics during that time?
I know, I know... I feel the same way. All light headed, perhaps a bit tingly, like my entire body has fallen asleep. It's just stunning that Fred, a human, could have imperfections!
I've got news for you, folks. There's only been one perfect person ever to talk the face of the earth, and last I checked, Jesus wasn't running for office on any ticket. So I guess that means instead of throwing out little "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..." snarkticles about the little imperfections in a candidates record, we're just going to have to judge them by their overall performance, and how we feel they'll perform in the future. Go figure. Fred Thompson appears at this early stage to be a pretty damned good candidate. And he has a major advantage of Duncan Hunter: Fred has more than 10 people who'll vote for him.
Croc Hunter
We (FDT supporters) know exactly what his record is.
You're right. Thompson's rhetoric and record really aren't far apart.
Thompson believes in small government, but he also is pro-life. In terms of banning abortion those two views are in conflict. He started out leaning towards keeping the government out of it, not because he wasn't pro-life, but because he felt the government wasn't the right solution.
However, he saw that the problem wasn't getting fixed, and after seeing his own unborn child, he realized that this was a situation in which it was necessary for the government to protect it's people, in this case it's unborn people.
His core beliefs didn't change, but how he balanced them against each other did as he learned more.
With campaign finance reform the competing issues are small government (less intervention and greater protection of free speech) versus a desire to constrain corruption in politics.
Out of a desire to limit the corrupting effects of campaign donations, he supported a horrible bill. Now that he has seen the failing of the bill in action, he says that it did not work as he had envisioned it and would change it.
Once again, not a change in his base beliefs, but a different approach to balance them based on new experiences.
If you look at what anyone says or does under a microscope you will see changes in how they approach things. You will also find that people make some well intentioned mistakes, but hopefully learn from them. In Fred's case you can see why he might have made those mistakes, and how he has learned from them.
While the effects can be very significant in terms of effects on free speech and lives lost to abortion, the changes in how he approaches those issues have really been rather small and his old stance on those issues were based on solid principles, but still wrong when considering the whole issue.
Me too, show me someone who is as electable and as Conservative as Fred and I will take a look, otherwise it's just BS.
Simple. Fred was a lobbyist and remained politically active. Look at the positions he took on legislation they asked him for his opinion at that time. Fred was supporting giving illegal aliens "some aspirations of citizenship" as recently as 2006.
Fred’s Record -
Voted YES to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification. (1996)
Voted YES on maintaining the chain migration system. (1996)
Voted YES on removed higher fines for businesses which hire ILLEGAL aliens (1996)
Vote YES grant amnesty to nearly one million ILLEGAL aliens from Nicaragua, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. (1997)
Voted NO on including worker safeguards in H-1B bill (1998)
Voted YES for foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud provisions. (2000)
The candidate I am supporting is much more conservative than Fred and is extremely electable nationally, having been elected Governor four times in a blue state. And if you're going to respond that he's a non-factor because he's polling in single digits, I'll remind you that Jimmy Carter was polling around 4% in the Democratic primary back in summer 1975. You can look at the November 1976 election to find out how "electable" he was.
good luck to you. we do disagree on his electability and on the extent of his conservatism. may the best man win.
You would be wrong. I'm a libertarian conservative, and fiscal/small government issues are very important to me. Thompson is fantastic on fiscal issues.
He doggedly held the line on taxes; as one example, he was one of only 36 congress members and only 9 senators to receive the coveted "Taxpayers' Friend" award from the National Taxpayers Union:
Citizen Group Salutes "Taxpayers' Friends" in Congress Just 36 Lawmakers Receive Awards for Scores on NTU's 2002 Rating Key excerpt: “Not all Members of Congress fought day in and day out during 2002 for the principle of limited government that is the cornerstone of our country’s greatness,” said NTU President John Berthoud. “Fortunately, at least 36 allies in Congress demonstrated an unwavering commitment to taxpayers. We are proud to honor this fiscal ‘coalition of the willing.’”
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php? PressID=113&org_name=NTU
Then there were the two amendments Thompson introduced to prevent Congress from receiving pay raises in FY1996 and FY1997 (search for these on THOMAS for more information):
S.AMDT.2231 to H.R.2020: To provide that no increase in the rates of pay for Members of Congress shall be made in fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] (introduced 8/5/1995) Latest Major Action: 8/5/1995 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SP 2231 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
S.AMDT.5208 to H.R.3756: To forbid any Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate from receiving a pay raise or cost of living adjustment in the fiscal year 1997. Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] (introduced 9/10/1996) Latest Major Action: 9/11/1996 The amendment (SP 5208) as previously agreed to was modified.
In addition, Thompson introduced a bill to prevent unelected regulatory agencies from imposing taxes without Congressional review:
S.1466: A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for congressional review of rules establishing or increasing taxes. Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] (introduced 7/29/1999) Committees: Senate Governmental Affairs Latest Major Action: 7/29/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
He also devoted much of his time to measures that increased the efficiency of government, and reduced fraud and mismanagement.
You realize that Hunter, the guy you’re leaning toward, voted “yes” on McCain-Feingold, right?
Does it really matter?
the gop candidate (whether it is thompson or not) can count on a "base" of about 30%
Unless the pubbies find some way to energize the independents...............(which are solidly in the cynically anti-gop camp) They will lose by 30 points.
the current president has all but assured that his party will be no more than a secondary consideration for years to come.
fred who?
“Fred Thompson’s Senate “record” on immigration is actually pretty simular to “RINO traitor” Lindsey Graham.”
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?
On the core issue of federalism and limiting the role of the federal government, Fred’s record is pretty solid. Rhetorically, he is doing a good job of making a case for this cause after the GOP’s detour into the labyrinth of big government conservatism. Rhetoric, record, either way he has my support.
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.