Posted on 04/20/2007 6:02:18 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
It seems that conservatives are about to make the same mistake that they made in 2000. Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his "compassionate conservatism," which we since have learned really means "liberal globalism."
Now, despite all the warnings, they are about to be conned by Fred Thompson too - another neocon (aka liberal globalist). Will they get what they deserve? Can people really be so shortsighted? In 2011 will we hear GOP cheerleaders, "If only I had known...."
Let's look at Fred Thompson on the issues.
First and foremost, let's ponder immigration, the greatest threat facing the West today. As Jean Raspail foretold in Camp of the Saints, the "best conservative novel ever written," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we must make a stand - before it is too late.
Although tough talking on border control, Fred Thompson has a rather weak record from his time in the Senate. Americans for Better Immigration only gave him a career grade of C. And on chain migration, visa lotteries, reducing unnecessary visas, asylum fraud, and reducing amnesties, he received rather low marks.
Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman." In other words, he believes it's a "choice."
Thompson is pro-affirmative action, and his two votes in the Senate guaranteed that under-qualified minorities would be given preference over Euro-Americans (i.e. white people). Thompson obviously believes that victimology should trump hard work.
And like all neocons, Thompson supports free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. Historically, conservatives opposed free trade, and they should; it's national suicide. But Thompson like many GOP cheerleaders has been "neoconned" on this issue.
In foreign policy, Fred Thompson is an adamant neocon globalist. He is a fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and a member of the neocon / neoliberal Council on Foreign Relations, which supports the creation of a North American Union and the eradication of American sovereignty.
In short, Fred Thompson is no real conservative. He's a neocon globalist. Only look at his past actions, memberships and words.
We already have three real conservatives in the running (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter) and let's give them the support they deserve. If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party.
Texas Fredhead here!
That article is bull.
As we say down here: That dog won’t HUNT!
So he is pro affirmative action. I was feeling some doubts due to his stance on Campaign Finance. Now I am convinced. He doesn’t sound like a conservative.
ZULU wrote: “What is his Second Amendment record?”
*
The NRA on Fred Thompson:
“U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, announced he will not seek re-election this year. His support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will certainly be missed.”
- NRA-ILA Fax Alert Vol. 9, No. 10, 3/8/2002
http://nrawinningteam.com/0203/thompson.html
*
Fred Thompson on Gun Control:
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
*
Fred Thompson’s SenateMatch responses on RKBA issues:
Strongly Favors topic 10: Absolute right to gun ownership
(10 points on Social scale)
YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks: Strongly Favors topic 10
YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows: Favors topic 10
NO on background checks at gun shows: Strongly Favors topic 10
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm
*
The NRA’s president campaigned for Fred:
“Fred... voted for numerous measures in support of Second Amendment rights. (Charlton Heston campaigned for him in ‘94.)”
- Mark Alexander, HaveGunWillVote.com
http://www.havegunwillvote.com/index.php?sec=news&id=420
*
The GOP Candidates on the Second Amendment
“The NY Sun reviews the position of the serious GOP presidential candidates on the most battered of all constitutionally-enshrined God given rights, that of self defense from crime and tyranny...
By comparison [to Romeny, guiliani and McCain], Mr. [Fred] Thompson’s relationship with gun-rights groups is sterling. A 2000 report from a campaign-finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist.”
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2007/04/05/the_gop_candidates_on_the_second_amendment.php
*
Fred compared with Rudy McRomney on gun issues:
Fred Thompson, the actor and former U.S. senator, wins plaudits from the National Rifle Association and others who defend firearms access. He said in a Fox News interview last month, “Well, I’m against gun control generally.”
By contrast Mitt Romney as Massachusetts governor praised his state’s tough gun laws, though he’s since joined the NRA. Sen. John McCain has had scrapes with the NRA, though he’s generally been protective of gun ownership. Giuliani, as New York City mayor, supported strong government restrictions on all firearms
Dan Janison, Newsday, April 9, 2007
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-lispin095164260apr09,0,4516399.story
*
Former Sen. Fred Thompson on ‘FOX News Sunday’
WALLACE: Gun control.
THOMPSON: Well, I’m against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You’ll find I’m pretty consistent on that issue.
WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you’d be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?
THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.
- Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday,March 11, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html
*
The Fred Thompson Annual Charity Shoot
Billed as the “Fred Thompson Celebrity Skeet Shoot,” the title captured both the essence and the diversity of the event. What was originally a political event dates back to when Fred Thompson was running for the US Senate. With the help of Donna Hilley of Sony/ATV Music, he put together a celebrity event to help him raise money and generate some positive PR. It did both and he was elected.
The senator wanted to continue the event after his election, but wanted to do so for a charity. Initially it was pointed towards diabetes in general. Eventually, Thompson handed the event over to the Sugarbugs, a non-profit, support-group organization for children suffering from diabetes. In 2000, the event raised $170,000 for the kids.
Thompson recruited some of his friends and associates for the events- political buddies, movie and television buddies, and country music buddies. Into this mix were added a few doses of sponsors from various industries and a generous helping of “un-celebrities” interested in contributing to a worthy cause. There were celebrities from country music duo Brooks and Dunn to actress Leslie Easterbrook. Sponsors ranged from firearms manufacturers Ruger, Remington and Beretta to the Tennessee Highway Patrol, BellSouth and FedEx.
- Marty Liggins, GunWeek.com, Spring, 2000
http://www.gunweek.com/2000/feature0810.html
*
They make a convenient target for the isolationists and trade warriors, and there are people associated with them that have ideas that I would strongly oppose, but I don't see the organization itself as backing those ideas, but rather providing the soil in which they grow.
the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments.
I'm not saying I support the CFR. Most of the board are people who are not my type of people, although a couple are good guys. I just don't see a simple membership in the group as being disqualifying. I'm more interested in what Thompson would say about the issues people attack CFR for.
No one with the views of Pat Buchanan is going to get the nomination.
So did my Dad.
The "rite" included many hours of supervised practice with safety being top priority.
Once I'd proven to Dad I'd be responsible he gave me a deer rifle. I did the same with my sons.
Such a "rite" of passage used to be common in the U.S.
I wonder from which campaign this originated. I smell fear.
Fred on Civil Rights.
# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
# Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
# Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
# Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
# Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Fred is crushing all three of those candidates from the set of his TV show. None of them have any real chance of winning the nomination.
If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party.
Wingnut status confirmed.
There's a HUGE difference between saying "I'm still in favor of position X, but implementation Y was a mistake" and "forget what I said about position X, I'm voting for position Z now".
You would rather the guy never change his methods if they're not working?
That is a problem for candidates, unfortunately. Meanwhile, middle-age women who see Rudy up close and personal swoon over him.
I think it’s the weird effect the late Richard Feynmann noted in one of his books (RF was not a very good-looking man). He found that women, for all their protestations, tended to be drawn to men who didn’t treat them well. I don’t know if I agreed with him (it’s hard to disagree with a man like RF) but it would explain why so many women like Rudy.
Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman." In other words, he believes it's a "choice."
What a load of nonsense.
Abortion: Thompson, on one occasion, 15 years before running for President, was reported by one (1) reporter to have stated a position that is pro-abortion. Subsequently, he repeatedly spoke against abortion, and in every Senate vote on the issue, voted against abortion. Contrast with Reagan, who 10 years before running for President made pro-abortion comments and as governor appointed pro-abortion judges. Thompson is vastly more conservative on abortion than Reagan was.
When Bush needed somebody to get strict constructionist John Roberts through the Senate, he didn't call McCain or Hunter or Romney and for sure he didn't even think of calling Rudy. He needed to git-r-done so he called Thompson. Who surpassed all expectations by getting 80% of the Senate and a majority of the Democrats to vote for confirmation. Anybody who suggests Thompson is "liberal" on abortion is smokin' peyote.
As for illegal immigration, he's more than willing to talk tough to the Mexican government (he's already roundly criticized their lack of seriousness on national radio). As for some of the things mentioned, (amnesty, visa lotteries) I'm not necessarily opposed. I strongly favor a significant level of legal immigration and that is a very, very conservative position.
NCSteve wrote: “You have arbitrarily decided some of the candidates can’t win the nomination so they are out of the race?”
I haven’t “arbitrarily” decided anything. Even Stevie Wonder can see who’s inspiring a large grassroots movement and who’s not.
Which is why I mentioned rethink instead of an outright never. Once he says he is in then hopefully the questions will start. I just tend to believe that people who join clubs/think tanks, tend to agree with it's writings.
Therefore, screw the memory of Ronald Reagan.
Not here! Fred exposed himself then...
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.