Posted on 05/24/2007 12:02:11 AM PDT by familyop
Mitt Romney is rightly being hit for his flip-flop on immigration. However, Fred Thompson's "tough" stance isn't exactly enough to make him the restrictionists' hero, either.
As recently as 2006, Mr. Thompson clearly stated that some sort of legalization — or "amnesty" — would be necessary. He seems to be for a virtual border fence (like President Bush) instead of a brick-and-mortar one. And he doesn't want tough sanctions for employers.
This all puts Mr. Thompson roughly in line with Rudy Giuliani.
On a path to citizenship: "[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)
On the problems with cracking down on employers: "We haven't enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we've not enforced the law, and that's a part of the problem. You can't enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That's not a solution to the problem." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)
On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX's ALAN COLMES: "You don't put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?" THOMPSON: "If it would work. I mean, I don't know – that's a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)
On enforcement first: "We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)
On not rounding up illegal immigrants: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)
I guess I’m a “restrictionist” since I’m one of those weirdos who believes we should enforce the laws on the books - built the wall that Congress passed, incarcerate or deport the illegals we catch, and prosecute those who employ illegals. According to Kennedy and Bush, I’m a bad man. They just want to obey the laws they like. We restrictionists are just dunderheads lacking nuance.
I like Thompson a whole lot better than Rudy McRomney. However, there are two problems I have which I have posted previously. First, Thompson was very careful with his words when he said that he is more worried about the next 12 million than those already here. He also said enforcement first, then we’ll discuss what comes next. He is a smart man and knows exactly what he is saying. Basically he is tacking to the right of McCain and Rudy, even with Romney, and to the left of Tancredo and Hunter.
My other qualm with Thompson (and this may paint me as a conspiracy theory whacko) is his membership in the Council of Foreign Relations. That is NOT a group friendly to conservatives (just check their membership roster), nor do they care too much for American sovereignty. I absolutely despised papa Bush’s “new world order” crap, and though Bush Jr. has dropped the phrase, he governs the same.
If Hunter gets more traction, he’ll probably get my vote. And there is always my conservative wet dream of drafting John Bolton.
Draft John Bolton-wouldn’t that be nice. I think that Republicans were just so afraid to oppose illegal immigration for fear of being called racists. Now they see that so many more people want the borders secured and I think this is due in part to the WOT, perhaps to the chagrin of W. The immigration debate has taken on a new dynamic and it it now THE issue. We now need a candidate with a backbone and not worry about flip flopping on this issue because it has been so politicized. It is the biggest third rail issue, period.
Ryan Sager is a libertarian who sees social and religious conservatives such as Thompson as the big weakness, in both philosophical and practical terms, of the Republican party.
Sager did do great work uncovering the smoky backroom nature of Campaign Finance Reform, but since then his quixotic quest to show that social conservatives are somehow not true conservatives has led him to write pieces like this which, while they may make some valid points, give me the same feeling one gets when Hannity plumps for Rudy while pretending he’s doing no such thing.
In this case, his attempt to make Thompson equivalent to Rudy on immigration is silly. Regardless of whether he’s flipped or flopped, Thompson stands far to the right of Rudy on this issue as of right now.
Bolton would make a really good Secretary of State under Duncan Hunter, IMO. For Secretary of Defense, we need someone like Patton—maybe a conservative, enlisted rank, young combat soldier.
I think what has happened in the past is that the illegal immigration issue has been an issue Republicans, nearly all of them except for a precious few, have not wanted to touch for fear of being painted as racists and bullies. There wasn’t national support for border security until the WOT and this works against Bush ironically. More politicians are standing up for border security because it is not political suicide now. What we have to do as Republicans is find the candidate that has a backbone, speaks out against illegal immigration right now, and has some kind of record of being loyal to his constituents. That person will be the candidate we need. In other words because illegal immigration was the ultimate third rail issue, I think we can forgive Republicans for flip flopping from a softer stance in the past.
Shhhh. There you go with FACTS again.
The FredHeads have lost all crediblity with me on this one. They want us to believe that when "red state" Lindsey Graham votes that way, he's a RINO traitor who is unfit to serve in the Senate, but when Fred Thompson votes EXACTLY the same way in the Senate, he should be leader of the free world.
Ask them about this glaring contradiction and they're resort to ad hominid remarks that Graham is a homosexual and bring up how Fred never "betrayed" us on the Gang of 14 thing and the torture bill, knowing full well the only reason Fred can't be tied to McCain on those is because he was retired from the Senate at the time -- NOT because he ever "opposed" them.
I feel sorry for the "Lindsey Graham primary challenger" they'll recruit if the poor guy has to run around South Carolina during primary season next year arguing that those votes are treasonous and make one unfit to hold office -- EXCEPT when Fred does it.
You won't see me complain about Rudy's views on abortion and then tout a retired, big-time pro-abort politician be drafted for President.
Sheer hypocrisy.
I guess Restrictionist sounds better than “racist”, or, “bigot” as Lindsey Graham calls Americans in front of La Raza (The Race).
I guess now the pro-illegal lobby has to get politically-correct when describing American citizens.
Good points, but Hunter is electable. People need to start supporting him.
Romney’s flip-flops are a turn off. Will he still be on the side of America regarding illegals....next week? Tommorrow? Five minutes ago?
‘You won’t see me complain about Rudy’s views on abortion and then tout a retired, big-time pro-abort politician be drafted for President.’-———BillyBoy
I am not sure what you are getting at there. If you have the time and care to elaborate, please do.
I am thinking of dropping my support for Hunter, because he isn’t ‘electable’. I have seen it written many times and who am I to argue with the clairvoyants of FR? I need to stop fretting about the best choice for America, and get involved in this popularity contest! Which way is the MSM leaning on
this one?
I wonder if we could Draft Bo Derek? Now there is a conservative actor, I know little about that I could support.
WWTD wrote: “My other qualm with Thompson (and this may paint me as a conspiracy theory whacko) is his membership in the Council of Foreign Relations. That is NOT a group friendly to conservatives (just check their membership roster), nor do they care too much for American sovereignty. I absolutely despised papa Bush’s ‘new world order” crap, and though Bush Jr. has dropped the phrase, he governs the same.
If Hunter gets more traction, he’ll probably get my vote. And there is always my conservative wet dream of drafting John Bolton.”
Hate to bust your bubble, but John Bolton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR members include both conservatives and liberals. It’s a think tank where they debate each other on foreign policy issues- nothing more, nothing less.
UCFRoadWarrior wrote: “... Hunter is electable. People need to start supporting him.”
How is Hunter going to win the swing vote? What is his appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats?
...for swing voters, even.
I’m sorry to hear that Bolton is also with the CFR. I’d prefer someone who has nothing to do with them.
Hopefully Fred and Bolton aren’t also running around naked in that weird Bohemian Grove club.
Then %@^%#$%# him too!!!!
“You won’t see me complain about Rudy’s views on abortion and then tout a retired, big-time pro-abort politician be drafted for President.”
Are you trying to say that Fred Thompson is pro-abortion? And not only that but Big Time?
You sir are a LIAR. If thats what you are tyring to say.
Fred definitely needs to clarify EXACTLY what his plan would be. The whole of his statements on this issue, (as opposed to these selective quotes) lead me to believe that he would pursue the right course of action- but it would be good to hear it concisely.
You guys are going to keep trashing every Repubican candidate until you end up with two that are utterly unelectable: Hunter and Paul. LOL.
Actually, it’s will Freepers EVER accept any candidate that doesn’t toe the line on whatever pet issue happens to be their #1? And will they ever be happy unless they have foisted on the Republicans an utterly unelectable candidate?
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.