[Ultra Sonic 007]

Okay, I've already found a few bits of misinformation.

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.

True, but his record regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION was an A- IIRC.

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."

Lies. His voting record is pro-life, and his rating by NARAL is 0%.

No idea about the others. Anything in here that might be lies or half-truths? It needs to be aired out and debunked before Fred decides to run (if he does).

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Fredhead ping!

[dirtboy]

Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns.

Never mind his 0 NARAL rating.

[Spiff]

Fred Thompson is not the most conservative candidate in the race. I’d rate his conservatism somewhere around President Bush’s, if not slightly more conservative. Yes, there are more conservative candidates in the race, but which ones are making any progress in the election? They’re trapped down in the single digits. Yes, I would love to elect a more conservative candidate, but I don’t see that as very possible right now. I see Thompson as a compromise candidate. I believe that conservatives can go a little to the left and that the liberals in the party can go a little bit right and we can elect this guy. I’m especially excited about his chances against the 2 liberals and the 1 batsh** crazy lunatic that are the frontrunners right now. I don’t want any of those 3 to get the nomination and I’ll gladly settle for Thompson as an alternative to any of those 3.

[Vaquero]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820535/posts

[Teacher317]

Fred Thompson is no real conservative. He's a neocon globalist.

Basically labeling him (improperly), and attacking the label. This is a very common tactic for the Left (and most others who cannot think their way through a cogent debate point.

[Always Right]

Why bother debunking baseless lies?

[kevkrom]

Re: abortion, Weekly Standard 4/19/07:

And on abortion, his comments echoed those he gave to THE WEEKLY STANDARD last week, when I asked about press reports from his first Senate campaign in 1994 that identified him as pro-choice. Thompson said: "I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice." He added: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."

[Mr. Lucky]

The gist of this article seems to be that, while senator Thompson consistently voted to curtail illegal immigration, he didn't’t personally hate Latin Americans as individuals and, therefore, he can’t be trusted.

[NavyCanDo]

My local conservative talk radio right at this moment is reading a wonderful editorial written by Fred Thompson in regards to the VT shootings. Without a doubt Fred believes in the rite to own a firearm to protect yourself and family. The last line say’s “when I drive by a sign that says gun free zone, especially in an area of a school, I wonder who that sign is really for”, meaning someone bent on killing will not care that it is a gun free zone.

I’ll see if I can find the editorial, and post it.

[TomGuy]

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.

Nearly a dozen states are currently trying to stop NAU. If we get another NAU cheerleader in the White House, this Nation will devolve into Mexico-light.

Too many are jumping on the FThompson bandwagon, their blinders in place. "Well, he's not X, Y, or Z," the bots say.

[100-Fold_Return]

When Fred asked Dean {IIRC} if Pres. Nixon had the White House bugged, aiding the dims in their witchhunt during Watergate—kinda seems ol Fred shattered Pres. Reagan’s {RIP} sacred 11th Commandment, ya think?

[SE Mom]

One of the websites Basil Harrington links to:
http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

And another:
http://conservativetimes.org/

Basil favors Ron Paul’s philosophy and seems to consider everyone else a sellout to one degree or another.

I have a mental picture of the far faaaar right and the far faaaar left meeting each other at the back of the political circle in a brave new world of anarchy.

[dmw]

Well, if Fred is too liberal I guess we’ll have to support Rudy. /s

[montag813]

We already have three real conservatives in the running (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter)

Yes, but NONE of these men have a chance of receiving the nomination, let alone be elected President. So we are back to square one again. If we are going to parse every viable candidate like this, we might as well not field anyone at all.

Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his "compassionate conservatism,"

Those of us who opposed Bush in 1999-2000 only had to look at his father and family to know why he should not have been chosen.

[arthurus]

Even were it true that FT is a closet liberal, his election with the help of Christian and conservative votes would not damage the Conservative movement even though it might set back programs and goals. A Giuliani elected with Conservative votes ends the conservative movement and the pro-life movement because conservatives will have shown themselves to be actually uninterested in conservative and prolife issues. They need not be taken seriously again. Election by conservatives of someone who then betrays them leaves the movement intact and healthy, merely stymied for the time being.

[econjack]

Historically, conservatives opposed free trade, and they should; it's national suicide.

I consider myself a conservative, but I support free trade. The ones who don't probably don't understand the issues. Protectionism protects the few at the expense of the many. Should we place import taxes and quotas on cheap Japanese steel because they "sell below their cost of production". If that's true, everything we produce (e.g., cars, appliances, buildings, etc.) now cost less. Yet, despite these social savings, they want to boost domestic prices to protect a small number of steel workers? Why? This protectionism keeps outmoded capital in production trying to compete with a much new stock of capital in Japan. (We pretty much reduced their steel capital stock to zero during WWII while we're still using plants built in the 19th century.) If it's true that they are selling below cost, we should buy ALL of our steel from them. Eventually, they'll either go broke, or they end up subsidizing the American consumer. Sounds like a we-win, they lose to me.

[Badeye]

Having heard three times Thompson’s Paul Harvey stand in commentary on how to deal with Mexico, I’d say ‘Basil’ understands why he’s got all the ‘buzz’ politically right now, and wrote a hit piece to try and slow the momentum.

I don’t know yet if I’ll support Fred Thompson when he gets into the race (yes, I think he will formally announce in the next few weeks).

I do know he’s already frightening those who have already stated they are running for the RNC nomination.

To me, thats a great thing. Let the debates begin, lets here from every single GOP candidate.

[Always Right]

Fred Thompson on Immigration:

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?
 

[jellybean]

Not sure this is even a credible news source. However this is how bad information gets spread across the internet. One lone blogger puts out false information. Then anti-Fredites link back to it as PROOF for whatever their point of the day is.

▲ Click the box to see where he stands on the issues. ▲

Draft Fred Thompson

If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.

CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.

[Post-Neolithic]

I did not know he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. My first choice was Hunter followed by Thompson but Thompson’s membership in CFR has me rethinking my position. CFR is nothing but a front for those that would eliminate the United States Of America.