What the NRA says about Fred

NRA web site

[Robbin]

I keep reading threads that claim Fred is "Weak" on the second amendment. So I went to the NRA's web site and searched. Here is what the NRA said about Fred when he was leaving the Senate. "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."

That's good enough for me. RUN FRED RUN

[Graymatter]

Yes, I know. But they said he unabashedly favors it, and in the present tense, I don’t think that’s accurate.

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[DieselHoplite]

He didn’t call for the repeal of it as Romney did but I think he now says he is against some parts that limit political ads in the final weeks of the campaign.

[AnnaZ]

I love that VT piece of his, and thanks for taking the time to explain to people how/why it's so brilliant.

[Publius Valerius]

What a joke. GOA just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Why? I thought the page was very informative; it laid out the votes and the footnotes explained the circumstances behind the bill. Moreover, the overall tone of the page was support (albeit lukewarm) of Thompson. The GOA wasn't playing "hide the ball."

Seriously, what's your beef?

[kevkrom]

There are some good things in the bill, after all. Thompson’s amendment to raise the “hard money” cap from $1000 to $2000 and then indexed to inflation allows the individual contributor to have more of an impact, if they desire.

[mmichaels1970]

He said something like, “I’m not there yet, but maybe we should scrap the whole thing”. He mentioned that he might be in favor of allowing unlimited contribution amounts, but requiring full disclosure of all contributions via the internet.

[xsmommy]

thanks, i had not seen that. it’s great, thanks for your analysis.

[Publius Valerius]

Those "anti-gun" votes include votes for CFR and Clinton's surgeon general nominee, so take it with a giant chunk of salt.

When Clinton's surgeon general was on record claiming that guns should be banned or restricted as a public health risk, I think it's fair to characterize a confirmation vote as an "anti-gun" vote.

[kevkrom]

How many times do we criticize the Democrats for failing to appoint qualified Bush nominees because of political differences? Isn’t it hypocritical to suggest that a potential appointee’s political opinions disqualify him or her from the post just because the other side is making the appointment?

[mmichaels1970]

Here's the article...

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

[SW6906]

Ping!

[Designer]

"Of course, the GOA contributed to Thompson, along with the NRA."

IMO, pacs need to contribute in order for pols to listen.

[DieselHoplite]

“He mentioned that he might be in favor of allowing unlimited contribution”

You know this it the part I find hard to believe. He fought for those caps. The caps in the final bill that was passed were the result of a compromise between him and feinstein. I wouldn’t be surprised if he called for the repeal of everything else but keeping the caps.

[mmichaels1970]

I dug up the March John Fund article in post #31.

[Publius Valerius]

I think that judges’ political views should be off-limits for criticism. Other Officers are political, however, and their political views should be fair game, so far as I’m concerned.

Especially true when a nominee intends to use the power of his position to effect political change.

[roaddog727]

FREDHEADS!

ONWARD TO VICTORY!

[SW6906]

Fred could have been taking the position that the President has the Constitutional right to appoint whomever he wants and, barring any serious disqualifying issues - not just political differences - that appointee should be confirmed by the Senate.

That's the way it should be, IMHO, regardless of who is the President.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Yeah, well, the NRA is just a bunch of RINOs anyways.

/Duncanistas

[DieselHoplite]

I know. I had already seen that. This is a recent interview with him talking about the caps:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iE0T1tc8yRE

I don’t have the transcript so I don’t know if he also said the thing about unlimited contributions with full disclosure but it sure didn’t look like he was going in that direction.