Posted on 11/09/2007 7:27:33 AM PST by Josh Painter
I find it interesting that none.........absolutely none of the candidates talk about the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax. I guess either idea is dead to them.
Unfortunately, too many good conservatives here do not look at Fred as a different kind of candidate running a different type of campaign. They only see he is not doing the 'normal' things in a campaign.
Aside from the ones who absolutely hate him, and there are quite a few, there is a huge following that will support him.
I was looking to Duncan to rise above the group, but his campaign management has booted that to the curb. Not his fault, but I would have had a team that understands how to run a campaign.
Well done!
BTTT
Excellent Post! I love it. Go Fred!
Excellent article. Go Fred!
I don’t trust any candidate not willing to take a no-new taxes pledge. Failing to do so is nothing more than an attempt to leave the door open to raise taxes.
Thompson doesn't sign pledges to anyone. Period.
Like it or hate it, that's the way he is.
Duncan is a terrific representative, and a good man.
I don’t like extortion, whether it’s perpetrated by union goons, or liberal and conservative activists.
We need more people like Fred in the House and Senate, along with HIM in the White House!
Thanks, Josh, for the great work! From what I’ve seen, if Grover Norquist is saying Thompson is a bad candidate and resorting to lying about his record, that’s a huge plus for Fred!
See below — Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform are a massively pro-amnesty, pro-open borders group. And they don’t like Thompson, even though Thompson’s excellent record on taxes is well-docmented. That, to me, speaks volumes.
Check this out — it appears Norquist may not appreciate that Thompson has been focusing on illegal immigration and talking about how bad the amnesty bill was.
Americans for Tax Reform Supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Nation’s Broken Immigration System Needs to be Fixed This Year
PR Newswire - New York
Date: Apr 6, 2006
Abstract (Document Summary)
WASHINGTON, April 6 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Senate is currently debating legislation to strengthen and improve our nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) strongly encourages the Senate to support comprehensive immigration reform solutions that fix the entire broken system — not merely enforcement options alone. There are many parts of the immigration system that are broken, and enforcement alone will not fix the problem.
Advocates of enforcement alone are blind to the realities of the current US labor market. Undocumented workers represent one out of every twenty laborers in America, and nearly a quarter of new workers coming on line every year. To ignore this vital component of the labor force perpetuates a broken system that is disconnected from the real world.
And more:
7/25/05 - Cornyn-Kyl Immigration Bill Advances Comprehensive Reform Another Step
Plan has some problems, but moves the ball down the field
WASHINGTON — Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist today praised the introduction of S 1438, the “Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005,” co-sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), even as he expressed some serious reservations about plan details.
S 1438 would institute border security upgrades, help employers comply with immigration rules, create a temporary worker visa program, and would require currently undocumented workers to return home before being granted any legal status.
“Senators Cornyn and Kyl are to be applauded in introducing a bill that recognizes that border security without acknowledging the needs of our labor markets actually leaves America less secure,” said Norquist. “The only way to truly keep our borders safe is to put a system in place the overwhelming number of workers we need can actually use in the real world.”
Cornyn-Kyl contains one element that is fairly impractical. It would require the 11 million undocumented workers already in America to return to their nation of origin (largely Mexico), and process through a newly-streamlined work visa/border checkpoint system.
“That provision is highly impractical, would never happen in the real world, and would encourage undocumented workers to avoid, not comply with, the new law,” continued Norquist. “Can you imagine the prospect of 11 million hardworking laborers having to go across a border just to sign a piece of paper, only to return to their current jobs? That’s just the kind of bureaucratic run-around people leave their home countries to avoid.”
http://www.atr.org/content/html/2005/jul/072505pr-cornyn-kyl.htm
And MORE
Support for amnesty
Grover Norquist and ATR have openly supported amnesty for the nation’s 12-20 million illegal immigrants. In a statement issued February 9, 2005, Grover Norquist called for Congress to “support President Bush’s common-sense plan” to give “foreign laborers [i.e., illegal immigrants] guest worker cards” and “to match willing [foreign] workers with willing employers.”[2]
In another statement issued in May of 2006, ATR declared that it would consider a vote against S. 2611, the 2006 amnesty proposal, to be a vote against taxpayer interest. The release stated:
“ATR reserves the right to vote for final passage, a procedural motion, or any amendment to this bill. In particular, amendments that seek to dilute the comprehensive nature of the bill will be strongly-considered. These include but are not limited to measures to restrict the temporary worker program or measures to make it more difficult for illegal workers to earn legal status. ATR is also sensitive to amendments which put onerous restrictions on employers without giving them the ability to acquire a legal workforce sufficient to meet labor needs.”[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform
The problem is, these pledges never turn out to be binding -- candidates who take such pledges (including some candidates currently running for president), inevitably find a way to weasel out of it anyway.
Personally I put a lot more stock in these candidates' records rather than what they say. And Thompson's record as a friend of taxpayers is very strong.
Ron Paul: $34 billion
And I thought that Ron Paul was the definition of small government?
Shrimp is expensive.
I’m sick of all of them.
Agreed. I appreciate it when they keep quiet, but I know there is lots of pressure on them from their "public" to reveal what candidate they like. I know Rush Limbaugh has been taken to task for not endorsing a candidate, but I rather like that he hasn't. I love to think Rush is thinking to himself, "What the hell is the matter with all you people who don't see that Thompson is clear and away the guy for this win?" I've listened to and read enough of Rush to know who I think he's voting for in the primary. My fantasy is that Rush lets it slip in time to push Thompson to victory.
I know that there are other listeners who think the same but plug in the name "Hunter" or "Romney" or whatever. And that's okay with me.
I can absolutely understand, ESPECIALLY in the context of what I read from all sides of "conservatism" social and otherwise on Free Republic, WHY he's keeping mum. No matter which candidate he chose, he'd bear the bitter wrath of former fans six ways to Sunday, judging by Free Republic. Every other call would be from a shrew lady conservative ready to give him hell for not supporting her favorite, whoever that might be. Maybe Rush figures it's smarter to keep his mouth shut. The only thing I've heard from him regarding primary candidates was his reference to feeling "like the guy who Romney threw under the bus" (comparing to Romney's lame media comment on the "phony soldiers" drive-by attack to Romney's abandonment of the ol' toe-tapper guy).
I'm kind of relieved Rush has kept quiet because it lets me think whatever I want about him! I wish Hugh and Laura and Hannity and Medved and Coulter had been equally reticent.
But here's what a hypocrite I am ... I'll confess ... I was really gratified when I heard KFI talk radio host John Ziegler puzzle over the fact that it's taking so many so long to figure out the deal with Thompson -- that he's really the only viable conservative in the race. Ziegler isn't well known (7-10 p.m. weeknights, L.A.'s KFI AM 640 talk radio), but over the past year or so I've listened, he's nearly always damned Hilariously politically incorrect, outraged, honest, funny, and RIGHT ON THE MONEY. He gets great guests, too, weird ones and famous ones -- he's a blast. His taking the same opinion on Thompson as mine just made me like him more.
Thompson was a forceful proponent of tax reform, lambasting the IRS as “mismanaged” and “wasteful,” and a strong supporter of the flat tax. In fact, Thompson was the only senator to vote to table an amendment proposed by Senator Dorgan that took the flat tax off the table during a budget debate. “The problem with the Dorgan amendment is simple,” Thompson declared in a press release the following day, “it puts you on record against a flat tax. I think a flat tax is one of the options that should be considered as part of the debate on comprehensive tax reform.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
Shows how ridiculous these ratings are, doesn't it?
From Write It Right: a Little Blacklist of Literary Faults, by Ambrose Bierce (1909):
Funds for Money. "He was out of funds."It seems that even a hundred years ago, there was common confusion.
Funds are not money in general, but sums of money or credit available for particular purposes.
And the way money is spent by Congress is ridiculous, having to allocate the amounts and then divvy it up. Once losing a vote in Congress to spend the money, is it any crime for a representative to try to get an appropriate portion spent on projects his constituents have requested?
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.