Fred Thompson Supporters: How is Fred Superior?

Electromneyin2008 ^ | 7/22/07 | Vic Lundquist

[mnehring]

OK, different bill than I posted.. let me check this one.. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is in the same boat..

[ontap]

My admiration for Ronald Reagan could only be described as fanatical to the extreme.

[pissant]

I did not use On the issues or anything else. That was the congressional record text I posted.

[concretebob]

Thank You Thank you ***Bowing***

[mnehring]

Interesting bill.. I may want to look more into it because of the 6 Nays, 5 are Republicans and most of those have strong anti-illegal records..

[pissant]

Look who the pubbies are. LOL

[ellery]

I’m not asking you to justify it — I’m saying you *did* try to justify it, by saying it was old news, everyone did it, and it’s Bush’s fault — right here on this thread. Now you’re denying that you tried to justify it.

Tappity tappity tap tap...

[ontap]

I believe your post#22 was the first one to bring up flip floping. If voting for the biggest spending bill sense SS ain’t a flip for a conservative what is.

[Reader of news]

At this point in history, I would prefer a Churchill.

There's one politician who has been calling for more troops for years and has been vindicated, as Churchill was: Senator John McCain. He's made annoying remarks and is wrong on immigration, stem cells... But he's right on THE issue.

[pissant]

I never said it was old news. I NEVER EVER use that excuse. And I never blamed bush for Hunter’s vote. My Bush mandate comment was a sigh of disdain, not a “by golly he deserved” it comment

[ontap]

It is one of a few things he has been absolutely right on, But he has a tin ear on just about everything else. I think John’’s time has passed him up.

[pissant]

I’m not defending Hunter voting for prescription drugs anymore than I’m defending the GOP and Bush as a whole for pushing it. But its hardly a flip. Apparently the GOP had been trying to get this done since the days of Reagan.

[Reader of news]

Well, he has good stances at least on pork-barrel and spending, judges and abortion. And on THE issue: Iraq.

[pissant]

Not really. Not until the Iraq troops were sufficient in number to be of use.

[ontap]

I don’t recall t it being brought up by the GOP till 2004. Point is it’s always risky to bring up individual bills. All politicians have votes they wish they could take back or votes they did for reasons other than really supporting a particular vote. Fred and Duncan are no different. Thats why we have to judge them on their overall record.

[pissant]

I agree with that. But it passed in 2003. Bush stumped in the 00 campaign for it saying he was the leader who would finally get it done after all these years because he was a “leader”. He did just that.

[ontap]

As do most of the other republicans but they don’t have immigration and McCain Feingold to explain away.

[concretebob]

More troops is only part of the answer.
The other part is swaying public sentiment to that line of thought.
I'm afraid that the loudmouth liberal extreme leftwing radicals have done considerable damage to our war effort in Iraq and the GWOT, to the detriment of our safety and Western Civilization.
I don't see a way out of this, unless and until the malls start burning, soccer moms start blowing up and the airports are shutdown.
When that begins, when we become Tel Aviv or Haipha, then we will see the common man stand up and demand that we commence hostilities against any and all state sponsors of terrorism.
(The "Kill Them All, Let God Sort It Out" strategy)
I hope and pray it never gets to that point, but I'm a pragmatic cynical realist, and I understand the evil driving the terrorists.

[hoosierpearl]

“You don’t support his votes for massive entitlement expansion, but you justify them by saying that it’s old news, everyone does it, and it’s Bush’s fault. Then you make a baseless accusation against Thompson which you quietly drop without repudiating.

Singing in the rain....just singing in the rain...”

Thank you ellery for that excellent post. Deserves a bump.

[mnehring]

Well, reading the bill and digging around for the comments on this, this was a piss poor amendment in terms of exceptions and I would have probably voted against it. Read the entire amendment, specifically, look at the exceptions:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:1:./temp/~r104FLSz4Z::
(b) Exceptions: Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the following benefits:
(1) Emergency medical services under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(2) Short-term emergency disaster relief.
(3) Assistance or benefits under the National School Lunch Act.
(4) Assistance or benefits under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
(5) Public health assistance for immunizations and, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that it is necessary to prevent the spread of a serious communicable disease, for testing and treatment of such disease.

Basically, it prohibits benefits to illegals except, it also grants benefits to illegals like lunch programs, medical, generic 'disaster relief', etc.. are you for granting these things to illegals?

You can say by voting Nay that he voted to give benefits, but by voting Yea for this bill, if you look at the exceptions, you are also voting to give benefits to illegals.. This amendment is a lose-lose and no matter how someone voted, the same thing could be said..

This is one of 150+ amendments to the Welfare Reform Act.. and if you go through how Thompson voted on those amendments, it seems pretty consistent that he voted consistently conservative.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d104:./temp/~bdaVGcx:1[1-244](Amendments_For_H.R.4)&./temp/~bdQ1N5