Posted on 06/24/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT by rob21
As a federalist, why would fed dollars pay for this?
Principles, right?
Well said. No substance to the Hunter attacks. And they are clearly meant to bring support to the phony ‘conservative’ choice with Thompson. Not voting for the BEST but for who can supposedly ‘win’ even though campaigns and polls change based on the competence of the candidate. Thompson is incompetent.
Yes, we are all supposed to blindly support Fred Thompson. Don’t you know Thompson knows how to run a campaign?! It’s great strategy and his supporters actually find competence in a man who doesn’t like to campaign to begin with, STILL having not officially declared. Much better to live off the hype and we are all supposed to get on board even when he is nowhere near the best candidate and the best man for President. You’ve got it right, rob. Fred Thompson is not to be trusted as President and there are many troubling questions about Thompson’s flip flops. He never distinguished himself in the Senate and here they all want to silence those who actually question what this man has done and said!
If you refuse again, you are disqualified from serious debate for lack of objectivety, among other possibilities.
If this is the criteria that is going to be the normhere at FreeRepublic, please delete my account.
I can't Google anyone if I don't know the names. Are you saying that they are listed on his website as campaign managers and such? If they are so bad and Mr. Hunter is so bad for hiring them, why would Fred Thompson want to hire them?
I'll take Duncan HUnter over Fred ANY DAY!
******************************************
Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record
The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals voted for by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations of free speech by Gun Rights Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily verified. Summary:
1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )
On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage
On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.
3. Taggants in gunpowder
On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment — which Thompson voted for– would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.
4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
5. Free Speech restrictions
On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.
6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment
On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.
8. Anti-gun Surgeon General
Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.
9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill
On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.
10. Young adult gun ban
The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.
11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy
On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)
By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)
This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
Thankfully, Fred has judgement, and doesn’t take Federalism to the absurd extreme of inequity.
Like I said: “that all you got?”
Regardless of anyones opinion of Fred,this behavior is the same exact CRAP that we were subjected to by the Rudy-Bots!
If Fred is so good, and deserves our support, he MUST be able to answer questions that will surely be asked of him in the general election.
Has FreeRepublic become so closed minded that it can not stand on it’s own basic standards?
Look, I like Fred on most issues. But the consistent bashing of Duncan as a big-spender or pro-pork congressman is just hypocritical. I perused Fred’s old website and was astounded at the number of press releases “Thompson, Frist announce funding for.... YOU NAME IT!”
It is not my intent to air all that laundry but to point out that Hunter’s record is perfectly acceptable, if not complimentary, when viewed in light of Thompson’s history.
That isn't a National Right to Life rating, it's a statistic based on his votes on many issues, some of which may have had a marginal affect on the abortion issue according to the standards imposed by whoever or whatever org compiled the stats. His official NRTL rating was 100% pro-life.
This is a clip from his recent address to the National Right to Life convention:
When I was in the Senate a lot of people would come to see me and it usually would have to do with business matters or financial matters or something pertaining to their financial welfare. When you came to see me, I always knew it was about something much more important than that, the most important thing of all in this World and that is life and I must say that those issues are even more profound to me as the years go by. Jeri and I have truly been blessed.
Let’s talk about some of those issues for a moment. In 1994, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. I was proud to receive the National Right to Life endorsement. I’ve been with you ever since. You’ve been with me ever since. On abortion related votes I’ve been 100 percent. We’ve had a lot of different kind of issues come up in the Senate from federal funding to stem cell research, Roe versus Wade and the partial birth abortion debate or as former Senator Pat Moynihan of New York used to say it’s more like infanticide than partial birth abortion.You know one of the proudest moments I’ve had as a private citizen was when the President asked me to help Judge John Roberts through the senate confirmation process to become a member of the Supreme Court. Well, now he is Chief Justice John Roberts, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed, but I think he’s going to go down as the best Chief Justice that this country has ever had.
On stem cell research, I’m for adult stem cell research not stem cell research where embryos of unborn children are destroyed. It looks to me like there is a lot of promising developments as far as adult stem cell research is concerned anyway and we don’t need to go down that other road.
Of course I am also concerned about these children after they’re born. I’m concerned about the cultural environment that they’re going to grow up in. I’m concerned about the fact that we’re bankrupting our entitlement program that’s going to saddle them with unbelievably high taxes when they’re going to try to start their families and buy that first home. I’m concerned most of all about their safety. We have an enemy in this World that would like nothing more than to kill thousands more innocent Americans; men, women, and children. I know you share those concerns, and I look forward to working together with you on them. Thank you so much for letting me be with you here for a few minutes today.”
That doesn't sound like a weak pro-life stance to me.
..agreed airborne
..ladies and gentlemen, if we cannot stand a little spirited debate without trying to get one another banned--this website will have a bleak future.
The Rudybots were advancing a clearly liberal candidate and agenda--with FDT there is a few degrees of difference with the DH position. I believe Duncan Hunter is the superior candidate, and if given the proper opportunity, America will see that.
I guess I should have qualified that with something about the candidate not being given to treachery with the Democrats and one that isn't f'ing nuts.
Here is Fred Thompson's pro life record.
1 - 10 | 11 - 20 | 21 - 30 | 31 - 40 | 41 - 50 | 51 - 51 |
| 083 | 084 | 085 | 086 | 087 | 088 | 089 | 090 | 091 | 092 | |
| Tennessee | ||||||||||
| Frist (R) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Thompson (R) | X | X | X | O | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Key To Votes: | ||||||||||
|
Why don’t you write to Fred’s campaign and ask your questions? Or, at least, take a little time to read his columns and interviews to see if he’s already answered them.
What I know of Thompson I like,for the most part.
It is the Thompson supporters, and their “Rudy-Bot” like tactics.
Are we not allowed to post articles questioning him, and asking questions?
I’ve asked and answered questions about all potential candidates. And for the most part, we have all had relatively civil debates.
But lately a few of the supporters of Fred Thompson have become abrasive and abusive, and any questions have been met with insults and personal attacks.
If Fred is a viable, conservative candidate, and we are to make a reasonable decision regarding our nominee,we must be allowed to investigate and question his record.
Are we going to be allowed to debate his positions, or are we going to be shut down?
Debate is fine. Accusations and propaganda that’s already been posted and refuted dozens of times is not debate.
That’s an admirable policy, but doesn’t address the point.
The personal attacks are coming from both sides, but only being dealt with on one side.
This thread is a prefect example.
B/S.
Thompson is incompetent.
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.