Posted on 06/21/2007 9:51:38 AM PDT by Robbin
If Romney got his way and McCain-Feingold were repealed, then individual hard money donation limits would revert back to $1000 or less. Because of Thompson's amendment to McCain-Feingold, allowable donations increased to $2300 per person.
Thompson is right -- the bad parts of McCain-Feingold should be thrown out, but the donation limit should be preserved.
Do you know if Fred has written about his views on stem cell research? Would like to read what he has said about it. Thanks! I’m with Fred!
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.
This is misleading at best, and at worst is a lie. The caps already existed -- Thompson fought to increase them as much as possible. He got Feinstein to agree to increase the limits and index them to inflation -- he stated that he would have liked to see the limits increased more.
Heaven forbid a President's political appointees have political views that match the President's!
Elections have consequences. Presidents are entitled to their nominees, barring legitimate questions about their qualifications.
According to GOA he voted pro-gun 19 times and anti-gun 14 times... that’s about as middle of the road as you can get don’t you think?
Second, I have been a big GOA supporter, gun-rights extremist who is not afraid occasionally to call the NRA the biggest gun-control organization in the nation. But much of this GOA stuff is utter crap. And maybe Fred did cast a vote I disagree with (I’ll need confirmation other than from GOA, thank you, to understand the context without their inflammatory, dishonest terminology, thank you.) But I don’t expect my preferred candidate to be perfect. I expect him to be the best available. And Fred is BY FAR the best. ESPECIALLY on gun rights.
Now, go read what Fred REALLY thinks about gun control, and then get back to me:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820535/posts?page=75#75
Seriously, what’s your beef?
They should stick to guns. And if they take a stand on other issues, they should be clear about it. (CFR wasn’t anti-gun in any respect, no matter how bad it was.)
Watch the video I posted before. He talks about the need to limit contributions. I thought you were in favor of that. I don’t know what’s your problem with what I wrote. I can post links about his compromise with Feinstein that resulted in the caps we have today if you want.
I simply disagree. There is a reason why the Senate has to confirm nominees. I think voting for a surgeon general who was on record as wanting to ban (or significantly limit) gun sales can legitimately be characterized as an anti-gun vote.
I understand your position; I just disagree. It's a political position. Politics are fair game.
That’s good to know! Thanks for posting this information.
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.
Still trust the GOA?
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.
I think the GOA can fairly criticize the CFR because it limits the GOA’s ability to lobby for or against candidates. That’s fair; if you restrict the GOA’s ability to inform the public about anti-gun candidates, I can understand why the GOA considers it an anti-gun vote. It’s on the fringe, but I understand.
But even assuming, arguendo, that CFR is entirely irrelevant to the GOA, it’s one issue of many that were detailed on the website. Again, I think the GOA’s website fairly laid out the information. It’s all there for anyone to review and come to their own conclusion. That’s all you can ask.
Sure, that was the vote that mattered.
I think the GOA can fairly criticize the CFR because it limits the GOA’s ability to lobby for or against candidates. That’s fair; if you restrict the GOA’s ability to inform the public about anti-gun candidates, I can understand why the GOA considers it an anti-gun vote. It’s on the fringe, but I understand.
But even assuming, arguendo, that CFR is entirely irrelevant to the GOA, it’s one issue of many that were detailed on the website. Again, I think the GOA’s website fairly laid out the information. It’s all there for anyone to review and come to their own conclusion.
CFR is anti-gun-control if you ask the Brady crowd, too.
I further note that the GOA made all of that clear in its footnotes. As I said before, it’s not playing “hide the ball.”
Paul has a perfect pro-2nd Amendment record. Why is it so strange that the GOA likes him? I would be shocked if the NRA doesn't love him too.
no, that’s not anti cap. What happened was that thompson was pushing for higher limits to get other republicans on board but the dems were against it and from that originated the Thompson-Feinstein compromise that allowed the bill to be passed. Just google for Thompson-Feinstein compromise and you’ll see.
Really Incendiary Headline
Additional incendiary and/or misleading text, over-emphasizing one part of a large complex bill that has at best a tangential relationship to the organization's main business.1
- 1 More details about the bill that actually show what a huge stretch the above statements are.
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.