Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson
ConservativeHQ ^ | 7-2007 | Richard A. Viguerie

Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert

He disappointed conservatives during his eight years in the Senate. Is there any reason to think this Washington insider and veteran trial lawyer would be any better as President?

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the “new Reagan”—a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton’s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, “A Star Is Born.”

He turned out to be a shooting star—a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, “A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet.”

Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House’s Asia fundraising scandal (“Asiagate”), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative. In fact, now that he’s running for President, Thompson is trying to flip-flop on this issue. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide from his record.

Why McCain-Feingold is so important—and so bad

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose—its claim to being a “reform”—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it’s been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of “reform” legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren’t threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups.

McCain-Feingold, the most prominent recent addition to campaign regulations, does this by prohibiting these groups from broadcasting any issue ads that refer to specific candidates for federal office in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election.

Why were those dates chosen? Because “that’s when people are most interested in the elections,” according to Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), one of the law’s most ardent supporters. In other words, McCain-Feingold and similar laws are intended to silence the voices of ordinary citizens who contribute to these organizations. And they are designed to do so at exactly the times when grassroots citizens can have the greatest impact.

The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson. Indeed, campaign finance “reform” was the only issue on which he seemed to show any passion.

Thompson was deeply involved in writing the law, lobbied for it among his fellow Republicans, and was even inclined to call it “McCain-Feingold-Thompson.” He and McCain were able to convince only five of their fellow Republicans in the Senate—but added to the Democrats, that was enough. “You were essential to our success,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Thompson in a gushing thank-you note after passage of McCain-Feingold.

Fred Thompson viewed through the Goldwater Test and the Reagan Test for conservative leadership

The Goldwater Test: Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhower’s policies were “a dime store New Deal,” he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.

Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now it’s no longer a dime store New Deal—it’s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.

And what has been Fred Thompson’s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he’s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he’s said it so quietly that nobody—not just us, nobody—has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit.

Thompson’s conservative leadership score on the Goldwater Test: F.

The Reagan Test: Throughout the 1960s and 70s Ronald Reagan walked with conservatives. He was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table—he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood. Also, our conservative friends were all around him as he governed in California and then ran for President—people like Dick Allen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Marty Anderson, Paul Laxalt, Judge Bill Clark…and the list goes on.

Where are the long-time conservative activists today around Fred Thompson? Not campaign consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder at campaign auctions. No, dedicated and recognized conservative thinkers and activists who will work only for truly conservative politicians.

Go ahead, try and name one. And if conservatives were not part of his inner circle before he started running for the presidency, we cannot expect him to have conservatives in his inner circle if he gets elected. And in politics, personnel is policy.

Thompson’s conservative leadership score on the Reagan Test: F.

Marshmallow Republicanism

When we look at the two politicians who are closest to Thompson—Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander—we can see very clearly why Fred will never be a conservative leader, much less a conservative hero.

Fred Thompson and Howard Baker are as intertwined as the two sides of a coin. Fred Thompson was Howard Baker’s campaign manager in his successful reelection campaign in 1972, after which the two were good ole’ Tennessee buddies. Senator Baker invited Thompson to move up north and be minority (Republican) counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of Richard Nixon.

Thompson, it is said, was the person who got Senator Baker to ask a Nixon aide: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The reply led to the discovery of the Nixon tapes, and that led to Nixon’s resignation. Almost sounds like something scripted in Hollywood or on the set of “Law and Order.”

Thompson and Baker are still good ole’ buddies today, with Baker urging Thompson to make this run for the presidency and playing a key role in its unfolding. Officially or unofficially, we could expect Howard Baker to play a key role in a Thompson White House.

And who, you ask, is Howard Baker? You belie your age, of course, by asking that, but even old folks may be excused for a little fuzziness on this matter. Well, Howard Baker was one of the chain of leaders of the liberal (Big Government) wing of the Republican Party. The order of succession was Nelson Rockefeller-Howard Baker-George H. W. Bush-George W. Bush. Because he never got to the White House as its #1 or #2 occupant, Howard Baker has sort of faded into history, but he was important in his heyday—and on the opposite side of the ideological fence from conservatives.

As Republican leader of the Senate, Howard Baker worked with President Carter to turn the Panama Canal over to the drug-running Panamanian dictatorship. He voted to spend taxpayers’ money for abortions. As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he said Reagan’s proposed tax cuts were “a riverboat gamble.” You get the picture. And this guy is still Fred Thompson’s closest advisor.

As for Senator Lamar Alexander (who’s up for reelection in 2008), he’s cut from the same cloth as Baker and Thompson—talk conservative but act like a “moderate” (i.e., liberal); above all, avoid sharp ideological confrontation with the Democrats. “The conservatism he exemplifies…,” wrote Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine, “is no longer a program. It is a style of talking.”

Like Thompson, Lamar Alexander got his first job in Washington from Howard Baker; and when Thompson dropped out of the Senate in 2002 to return to lobbying, trial lawyering, and show biz, Alexander replaced him.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, because Fred Thompson passes the Sally Quinn Test

Fred Thompson may get an F on the Goldwater Test and an F on the Reagan Test, but he gets an A on the Sally Quinn Test. And that tells us a lot.

Sally Quinn is a noted writer and the wife of Ben Bradlee, long-time editor of the Washington Post. You can’t get more to the center of the Liberal Establishment in Washington than this power-couple. And on June 26, 2007, she penned a telling bombshell in the Post on Fred Thompson.

Vice President Dick Cheney is “toxic” and “has the potential to drag down every member of the party—including the presidential nominee—in next year’s elections,” she advises, so the movers and shakers in the GOP must convince President Bush to force Cheney to resign.

“Until recently, there hasn’t been an acceptable alternative to Cheney…,” she admits. “Now there is.” (And by now you can guess who.)

“Everybody loves Fred,” gushes Sally. “He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor. He could be just the partner to bring out Bush’s better nature…”

I had never known Sally Quinn to be so concerned before about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and I am shocked that she allows for even the possibility of a “better nature” in President Bush. Be that as it may, we can see what’s going on here. She rightfully sees Fred Thompson as a marshmallow—oops, I mean “peacemaker” and “compromiser.” As the sitting Vice President in 2008, he would have the inside track on getting the GOP nomination. And liberals could rest easy, knowing their power is safe whether the Democrat or the Marshmallow Republican wins in 2008.

Putting Thompson’s 8 years in the Senate under a microscope

I have examined Fred Thompson’s eight-year record as a Senator in detail, utilizing the vote ratings of the American Conservative Union (ACU) at www.acuratings.org. He emerges not as an out-and-out liberal, but not as a principled conservative either.

Fred Thompson’s record may appear to be “conservative,” but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.

For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didn’t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume it’s because that’s what he believed.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

And, last but not least:

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Ronald Reagan he is NOT!

Fred Thompson on abortion: pro-life, pro-choice, or both?

There’s a lot of confusion about where Fred Thompson stands on the abortion issue.

During his Senate years, the Memphis Commercial Appeal described him as “basically pro-choice on abortion,” The Tennessean described him as “a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt,” and National Review deemed him to be “pro-choice.”

Yet his voting record as a Senator was solidly pro-life, earning him high marks on pro-life voting records and bottom-of-the-barrel ratings from abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Leaders of social conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum have had praise for his social-issues record.

How can this be? How can the conservative National Review and Tennessee’s leading newspapers describe him as “pro-choice” when his voting record is the opposite? The confusion results largely because Thompson takes—to use one of Washington’s favorite words—a “nuanced” position on abortion, and then sometimes compounds the confusion with conflicting statements. In addition, his role as a Washington Insider—a Washington lobbyist—raises disturbing questions that have not been answered satisfactorily by Thompson.

The federalism issue

One of Fred Thompson’s deepest held political convictions is his belief in federalism—that the federal government should stick to the powers granted it in the Constitution, leaving everything else to the states or the people. That’s great--if he actually voted as a federalist on the host of issues ranging from presidential power to education. The one area where he does take a pretty consistent federalist position, however, is on the abortion question.

“I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision,” Thompson says, and “that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.”

Because he believes abortion essentially should be a state matter, not a federal matter, Thompson has voted repeatedly against federal funding of abortion in Department of Defense facilities and says he opposes public financing of abortions for low-income Medicaid recipients. The same federalist reasoning, however, is presumably what also leads him to oppose (in a Christian Coalition questionnaire) a constitutional amendment “protecting the sanctity of human life” as well as federal legislation “protecting the sanctity of human life.” I say “presumably” because Fred Thompson himself has never really explained his seemingly conflicted statements and positions on abortion in a comprehensive and logical way.

The conception issue

Thompson is not against abortion per se, since he says he doesn’t know whether life begins at conception. At least that was the position he took before he started running for President.

“I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions,” he told the Conservative Spectator, a Tennessee newspaper, in 1994. “It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.” “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,” he told another newspaper. And in his Christian Coalition questionnaire, he penciled in: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This matter will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

Note that when he explained why he opposes Roe v. Wade on federalism grounds, he ended up saying: “When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.” “Leeway” obviously is code for “the states should allow some abortions.”

Thompson has, however, voted consistently against partial birth abortion. There’s no doubt that life has started in those late-term situations.

Fred Thompson the “conservative” politician vs. Fred Thompson the pro-abortion lobbyist

New information uncovered by the Los Angeles Times indicates that Thompson has lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights organization.

The official minutes of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) document that the group hired Thompson in 1991 to try to influence the George H. W. Bush Administration to loosen the restrictions that prevented federal funding from going to clinics that engage in abortion counseling.

Thompson’s support for federal funding of abortion is vividly recalled by the President of the NFPRHA, Judy DeSarno; the Director of Government Relations, Sarah Szanton; and a member of the Board of Directors, Susan Cohen.

To be fair, Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, has denied ever talking to Thompson about abortion. That may mean that Thompson either spoke to other officials in the White House or took the NFPRHA’s money and did nothing for them.

Either way, that kind of behavior is inconsistent with principled conservatism.

What would he do about abortion as President?

He would personally rejoice if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, at least according to some of his statements on abortion. For the sake of argument, let us grant him that sentiment. But if vacancies occur in the court during his presidency, would he have the fortitude to nominate and fight for judges who share his federalist sentiments and on that basis vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? And would he do so particularly if he faced a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, as seems likely?

Nothing in his past suggests that he would fight. The Nelson Rockefeller/Howard Baker/Poppy Bush wing of the party, of which Thompson is an integral part by virtue of the umbilical cord between Thompson and Baker, has always believed in accommodation rather than confrontation. You accommodate the Democrats, as Thompson himself did in his “Asiagate” investigation, and you can bet your entire rainy-day fund that the Democrats won’t accommodate a Supreme Court nominee who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Accommodation on this issue is a one-way street. Any accommodation would be done by President Thompson.

As far as other abortion-related politicking is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that abortion is a key issue anywhere near the top of Fred Thompson’s “to do” list. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” was Senator Thompson excuse, as told to The Tennessean. And later, when a pro-abortion group needed a Republican Insider to represent its views at the White House, we now know—from the minutes of the group’s meetings—who they turned to: Washington lobbyist Fred Thompson.

In short, a President Thompson would give pro-life conservatives some supportive rhetoric but little action. So what else is new?

The bottom line

Fred Thompson showed no conservative leadership in his eight years as Senator.

Fred Thompson was a key architect of one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent years—the speech-muzzling McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Fred Thompson cast votes in the Senate that increased the power of the federal government, limited the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and sought to shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Fred Thompson fails the Goldwater Test with a grade of F: He did not speak out against the Republican Big Government rampage of the past seven years.

Fred Thompson fails the Reagan Test with a grade of F: He has never walked with us or surrounded himself with conservatives or fought our fights.

Fred Thompson has instead been a protégé of one of the icons of liberal Republicanism, Howard Baker, who continues to be his key advisor.

Fred Thompson plays a tough guy in the movies and on television, but in real life he is a marshmallow who would pose no threat to the Big Government Establishment that continues to dominate Washington.

Fred Thompson is, in fact, a Washington insider and part of that Big Government Establishment through his eight years as a go-along Senator and even more years as a trial lawyer and Washington lobbyist.

Fred Thompson is not the conservative leader we need.

For the past year, I have been preaching to conservatives that we should not align ourselves with those who have fatal flaws from a conservative perspective. The imminent entrance of Fred Thompson in the race doesn’t change a thing, for the reasons I have demonstrated here.

Conservatives, let’s keep our powder dry. The GOP has taken us for granted in supporting their political agenda. Conservatives should make candidates come to us, and let’s make them prove that they are worthy of our support.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; beware; conservative; conservativevote; divideandconquer; duncanhunter; elections; fredfud; fredthompson; fud; giuliani; hitpiece; hunter; jesseventura; prolife; richardaviguerie; richardviguerie; rino; romney; spreadingfredfud; thompson; thompsontruthfile; tr; viguerie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
To: Dick Bachert

But the research site was DU...


161 posted on 07/10/2007 10:24:01 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues; mnehrling; ejonesie22

“What I find confusing is that folks here automatically label any member of CFR as a globalist.”

“We’re not afraid of globalization. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we’re the world’s best example of that.”

F.Thompson, 2006


162 posted on 07/10/2007 10:24:48 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

“L.Ron?”

Could you clarify that reference?


163 posted on 07/10/2007 10:25:16 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HoustonTech

Amen.


164 posted on 07/10/2007 10:25:59 AM PDT by CarryaBigStick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: brothers4thID
You can’t because what he said was that abortion laws, like the death penalty, should have never been a Federal issue and should have been left up to the states.

That was fine back in the day when no one was insane enough to believe that you could kill the helpless under our Constitution. But, since just prior to Roe, when the insanity set in, there has been no choice but to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and the personhood of the unborn. This is a national issue whether you, or Fred, like it or not...every bit as much as slavery, [a lesser evil than abortion], is a national issue.

He, like the rest of us possessed of more than 2 brain cells, knows that most state legislatures would ban abortion in an instant, given the chance.

No way. If Roe is overturned, without a declaration of the personhood of the unborn, most of the urban areas where most abortions are performed will still be doing so.

165 posted on 07/10/2007 10:26:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Implement the FairTax and be free and prosperous, or stick with the StupidTax...it's up to you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Jokelahoma

LOL!

Thank you.


166 posted on 07/10/2007 10:27:34 AM PDT by Sue Perkick (And I hope that what I’ve done here today doesn’t force you to have a negative opinion of me….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

No, it isn’t...

If you continue to persist with this lie, you will only hurt your own credibility...

Others here have given you the facts. Your lies won’t fly here...


167 posted on 07/10/2007 10:29:07 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Fred Thompson:

But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states.

When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.

I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that, if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...

168 posted on 07/10/2007 10:29:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Implement the FairTax and be free and prosperous, or stick with the StupidTax...it's up to you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

I think he’s smart enough, but he has no passion for conservatism and he gets bored easily.


169 posted on 07/10/2007 10:30:20 AM PDT by donna (Typhoid Mary Matalin, the Republican Administration Destroyer and Thompson advisor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

You haven’t given any facts at all. And I haven’t told a single lie.


170 posted on 07/10/2007 10:30:43 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Implement the FairTax and be free and prosperous, or stick with the StupidTax...it's up to you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
You are falling for the false relationship between globalization (lowercase ‘g’) and being a Globalist (capitalized.) Globalization is a natural economic result of ease of trade and transfer of currency and goods/services. Globalization happens because transport is eased through technology.

Being a ‘Globalist’ however, is different, it is the belief that there should be an all inclusive overriding global authority on all issues (such as the UN.) This authority would override state sovereignty.

Globalization is good, Globalists are bad.

171 posted on 07/10/2007 10:30:49 AM PDT by mnehring (Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Oliver Optic

Right now it seems like Thompson is good on defense. I don’t know what he would do differently in Iraq, and I’ll be interested in finding out. However, he isn’t an anti-war Cindy Sheehan type like Obama.

Thompson sounds very good on illegal immigration.

Thompson sounds much better than Bush on illegals. I didn’t realize when I voted for Bush that this would become such a huge issue, but it is a huge issue. I didn’t realize Bush was going to push his stance on the American people like he did.

Because of the problems with Bush and illegal immigration, that has become one of my major issues. I will not vote for any candidate that is for amnesty, even in the general election. I believe that rules out Guiliani, and I don’t know about Romney.

Defense and illegal immigration are my 2 deal breaker issues. I can bend on other issues, but I won’t on those 2 issues.


172 posted on 07/10/2007 10:31:02 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Actually, I have thought Fred was the guy to get behind and if others here can knock down Viguerie’s data, I may STILL back him.

So sad that we seem to be lusting for a knight on a white steed to ride into the White House and “save us” from the fate so many of us have engineered for ourselves. Ain’t gonna happen.

And the CONGRESSIONAL RACES ARE FAR MORE VITAL TO THIS COUNTRY.

If you want to know why, send me a private email.


173 posted on 07/10/2007 10:31:02 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sue Perkick
I wonder if Thompson's less conservative votes listed in the article were, in reality, votes for 1000-age "omnibus" spending bills and the like...

These things appear to hang up every senator that runs or reruns for office.

TV Spot: "Did you know that Senator Foghorn voted to club poor innocent animals to death" but the spot forgets to mention that the animal clubbing thing was a footnote to something like a reauthorization for the Iraq War - i.e., a Must Pass bill...

Technically true but horribly misleading in context...
174 posted on 07/10/2007 10:33:17 AM PDT by Frobenius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Anonymous Rex

Can you name any top candidate who does not have former bush people working for him?


175 posted on 07/10/2007 10:33:51 AM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Rudy, Mayor of Sanctuary City)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Judges Gone Wild

Of the last 3, I think Tancredo and his 1 issue mantra could do better than expected in the primary. However, I don’t think he could win the general election.


176 posted on 07/10/2007 10:34:06 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Frobenius

...oops

“100-age” means, believe it or not, “1000-page”


177 posted on 07/10/2007 10:34:31 AM PDT by Frobenius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Other than his vote for the McCain Feingold bill, I don’t see anything here that is especially damning. Failure to nail clinton on China? There was no way he could do more in the circumstances. Laziness? As I recall, people accused Ronald Reagan of the same sin, because he didn’t pretend to be busy all the time about fidgetty little things.

Sure, he will be pushed hard to do the will of the big money Republicans. Any electable Republican will be subjected to the same pressures. The question is, does he have the character to fight back on the important issues, or will he fold?

Should Fred have attacked Bush and the Republican party for spending too much over the past seven years? Why? What would that have accomplished? Absolutely nothing.

On the whole, I think Viguerie is not to be trusted. Who is he working for here, I wonder? Or is this just an ego trip?


178 posted on 07/10/2007 10:34:41 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
“Once the mob found out Fred was not the “perfect Messiah”, they cried out “Crucify him!”

Barabas '08
The people's choice.

179 posted on 07/10/2007 10:35:26 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (take my governor, please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

Thats a very good point....where does their influence end???


180 posted on 07/10/2007 10:36:15 AM PDT by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,141-1,149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson