Posted on 12/27/2007 7:34:22 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Just 15 days shy of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, Fred Thompson hammered home his “constant, consistent conservative” record and values to a crowd of about 150 in Davenport on Wednesday.
With time growing short and Thompson trailing far behind Republican front runners Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, according to a Quad-City Times-Lee Enterprises newspaper poll published over the weekend, Thompson said it was no time to elect a novice to the nation’s most important job at such a crucial juncture in its history.
“It is not time for on-the-job training, it’s time for proven leadership,” Thompson said in a 45 minute speech that touched on hot button issues such as illegal immigration, the future of Social Security and the United State’s role in an increasingly dangerous world.
On immigration, Thompson said the country should secure its borders, send back those who are here illegally regardless of whether they have children here and penalize so-called “sanctuary cities” by withholding federal money from them.
“We should be a nation with high fences and wide gates and we should decide how long they are open,” Thompson told the mostly male partisan crowd. “It’s like our home. We get to decide who comes in our home.”
On the third day of a bus tour that will take him to 50 cities and towns in Iowa, Thompson said he would simplify the nation’s income tax code and flatten tax rates and reform Social Security to save it. Those were all issues he tackled during two terms in the U.S. Senate from 1994 through 2002 when he won a seat in Tennessee formerly held by Democrat Al Gore, he said.
On strengthening the military and battling terrorism, Thompson said, “You don’t go looking for a fight if you’re the United States of America, but if you find yourself in one, you win it.”
David Moeller, 41, of Davenport was an early backer of ex-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who dropped out of the race for the Republican nod in August. He now leans toward Thompson and attended the event at the Radisson Quad-City Plaza “to see if he backs up what I think he stands for.” He had his 14-year-old son Michael in tow.
The verdict?
“I didn’t disagree with a single thing he said,” Moeller said. “I hope he can be a candidate and a president who brings back conservative values to the White House. I hope the road he was talking about going down does something to shine a light on the fact that the Republican Party is for the little guy, and not just for big business like some people think, because that’s what the party really is about.”
BTTT
A paper NOT under the control of Nurse Ratched.
Glad to see Iowan locals are seriously considering Fred once they know the issues he plans on driving home.
The Des Moines Register was once a fiercely independent and mostly fair-and-balanced (though it slanted GOP) paper. That was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Now, it is to the left of the NYT!!
Fred “leave it to the states” Thompson...
...conservative bona fides?
Our local paper is a Lee Enterprises publication. Most all news comes from the AP, LA Slimes, WaPo, and the like and the paper itself is run by an almost solidly Dem team.
To find a positive article for a conservative in what Lee puts out is rare. Cherish it.
Federalism is a hallmark of conservatism
Thanks for the background. It makes it even more encouraging.
I just made another donation to Fred and hope others can also. Sent $25 and although that isn’t much I know every little bit helps. If all Fred’s supporters just sent in even a small donation, the goal would be easily reached. I hope by tomorrow evening the goal will be reached and then some! GO FRED!
“Fred “leave it to the states” Thompson...”
Uh, it’s called Federalism. Roe v Wade took away the rights of the states to decide.
Meanwhile, at this time a constitutional amendment is unattainable. But if it goes back to the states, local politics can hone in on changes for the good of the unborn.
Fred wants to nominate judges who will overturn Roe v Wade.
he definitely saying all the right things.
EXACTLY right!
Neither federalism nor incrementalism are adequate excuses for being against a Human Life Amendment and a Protection of Marriage Amendment.
There is a constitutional (thus, federalist) way of such a thing, just as there was, to guarantee freedom from slavery -- in each and every state and territory.
People who do not understand that our Constitution rests upon our founding declaration of the Right to Life have a flawed political stance -- likely tragically so.
All or nothing huh?
Good luck with that.
I’m a lot happier with a lot of small steps. Sure works well for the left. Ten thousand left wing Lilliputian steps have tied our country into knots. We need to do the same, in reverse. Plus, it is in step with our Founding Fathers vision.
Even if you were correct in each and every one of your statements, you have still reached an incorrect, self-defeating, and ultimately assinine all-or-nothing conclusion. A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step but you apparently want to stay in the killing grounds until you can magically make the journey in a single leap.
The rest of us in the real world encourage you to join us in making a REAL difference. In the REAL world.
I guess I'm not getting through clearly. We should/must save whatever lives we can and make whatever progress to keep marriage, marriage. Incrementalism is important -- but it is no excuse to oppose an ultimate, thorough Human Life Amendment and Marriage Amendment, as Thompson does.
"Leave it to the states" is the Steven A. Douglas approach.
“The ‘state approach’ to abortion would be the most efficient way. You can’t have a Constitutional victory until you have 2/3rds of the States supporting, so if you start with a State by State approach, you can have immediate action while and know when you have enough to pull the Constitutional trigger, if needed. If you pull the trigger too soon, without having the 2/3rds of the States, you could kill the pro-life movement with a Constitutional loss.”
Yes, this is the logic of using an initital federalist approach. You isolate states that allow abortion. If states could decide, it would be a long fight, but eventually 75% would ban abortion in most cases.
However, there is one thing to remember about Fred on this issue. Fred is a real honest to goodness federalist. Even if there was enough votes to get a constitutional ammendment through in the future, Fred would oppose it on idealogical grounds. He thinks each state should decide, not the federal government (in the form of the rest of the states). He would leave abortion or homosexual marriage intack in states where the people of that state want it, even if 3/4 of state legislatures would be willing to ratify constitutional ammendments. That is the nature of a true federalist. So, it can come back to bite you.
One needs to understand what true federalism means and can result in happening.
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.