Posted on 06/23/2007 7:19:15 AM PDT by etradervic
After John East, a stalwart conservative from North Carolina, entered the U.S. Senate in 1981, wags began referring to Jesse Helms as "the liberal senator from the Tar Heel state." We are reminded of this tale as Republican activists rush to encourage, if not yet fully embrace, the presidential candidacy of Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee. The Republican base is evidently unimpressed or uninspired (or both) by the conservative credentials of the top three Republicans (John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani) seeking the 2008 presidential nomination. Mr. Thompson's most-oft-cited conservative credential is his 86.1 percent lifetime (1995-2002) Senate vote rating compiled by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the organization that many rightly consider a leading arbiter of conservatism. In the same relative sense that Mr. Helms could be considered North Carolina's "liberal senator," Mr. Thompson's ACU rating would qualify him to be "the liberal senator from Tennessee" during his eight-year stint. Bill Frist, who defeated Democratic incumbent Jim Sasser, was elected to the Senate from Tennessee the same year (1994) as Mr. Thompson, who won the seat vacated in 1993 by then-Vice President Gore. During the eight years they represented Tennessee together, Mr. Frist compiled an ACU rating of 89.3 percent, making Mr. Thompson "the liberal senator from the Volunteer state."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I wouldn’t consider miliary spending “LIEberal”...up-armored Humvees, better body armor, or new technology for the military...
I wasn't refering to Hunter's military spending. If you are implying that I did, that would be a lie. As I said, Shall I list the unconstitutional, liberal, big-spending items that Hunter voted for?
Hunter WON’T be President. .
Matalin is a negative, but others, like Zach Wamp, are major positives. I think he’s simply running the bases here and getting help from all sides of the GOP.
Strategy, folks.
No, when work place laws are enforced many will deport on their own. As I said, Thompson has said that he is against amnesty and that he's for enforcement.
National Security and the aggressive pursuit of the war against Jihad.
Seal the border and grant NO AMNESTY.
Appoint strict constructionists to the USSC.
Reduce BOTH taxes and spending.
Win, so that we have a snowballs chance for the above.
It's now a two man race in the GOP between Rudy and Fred. I could live with either based on the issues that matter to me. I believe either could win the general election as Hillary and Obama are un-electable. Perhaps Gore is un-electable now that he's a movie maker.
I have high confidence for the Presidency in 2008...but I'm really concerned about the Senate. Only about 1/2 to 2/3 of the GOP caucus is on the right side of my issues and a handful of Dims on the right side of the big ones.
I advocate we focus on these RINOs in the Senate and drive them out of town.
Spinning it like the MSM, I see.
Is it illegal to enter the country ILLEGALLY??? The laws on the books say they can be imprisoned and/or deported. How is it “off the wall” to follow the law.
I can invite a few (million) friends over to your house and that’s okay with you? Don’t put up a fence to stop me, cause that might “obfuscate” the issue.
Just remember though, you can’t send me home, nor can you detain any of my friends. You must give me food, shelter and FREE HEALTHCARE!
Here’s a few of the “friends” you’ve allowed in to stay indefinately....
If they don’t leave on their own or are deported that means they get to stay right? And for them to leave on their own the government doesn’t have to do anything. He is not totally wrong.
~~~ Fred Thompson on Fox News Sunday, March. 11, 2007
“Thompson has said that he is against amnesty and that he’s for enforcement.”
Doesn’t Bush say the same thing? No one is in favor of amnesty if you ask them. Even Ted Kennedy says he is against it.
He’s for AMNESTY....same as Bush. Both say “can’t deport” when it’s proven you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs
If Fred is truly for ENFORCEMENT, then he would support deportation since that IS the law.
Doesn’t Bush say the same thing? No one is in favor of amnesty if you ask them. Even Ted Kennedy says he is against it.
Bush is for the visa amnesty bill. Thompson is against the visa amnesty bill.
No. Fred said that you can't deport 12 million. Fred did say that he is for enforcement which means that some would get deported, some will leave on their own and some will go into hidding.
But he is in favor of giving aspirations of citizenship and says illegals can’t be deported.
I never said that. My post referred to your convoluted analogy in #97. Sillytalk will not solve the issue.
If the Feds secure the borders FIRST, enforce existing employer sanctions contained in the IRCA of 1986 and end ALL government handouts to illegals, most alien intruders will leave of their own volition.
AGAIN --- anything short of deportation IS NOT amnesty and to say it is, obfuscates the real problems associated with the current outcry for more liberal immigration reform being promoted by so many of our elected officials.
Zach does make me feel better. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll keep an eye on who else joins the team.
Thompson can say what he thinks people will support, but you get more of the same NON ENFORCEMENT rhetoric. “Path to citizenship” is already established. Those not following that path have entered illegally and committed a FEDERAL crime. If you forgive them for their crime, as in “path to citizenship” that is AMNESTY.
They face imprisonment, fines and DEPORTATION. If you didn’t respect the law to get here, the new hoops and hurdles won’t be respected. We don’t need new law, just people that won’t read into current law whatever they like.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
Sorry, but there are certain issues that are so blatantly wrong-headed as to totally contaminate candidates. For me, CFR is one of them--McCain has sworn oaths several times to support and defend the Constitution---not gut it.
There is a difference between being misled (as Reagan was with the abortion bill), and just ignoring the Constitution (as McCain did).
If you like being a GOP-bot, be a bot, but I’m not.
Actually, I’m not. I am Christian Conservative. I vote for the candidate that most nearly matches my convictions. Most assuredly, neither of which is on the, as Ann Coulter accurately labels them, the Godless Democrat party.
As to third party, they may field a better candidate reflecting my convictions, however, I won’t be voting that direction, it amounts to a vote for the Democrats.
The avoidance of which, obviously means nothing to you. You are open to even voting for a Democrat. Downright troubling that there are Freepers who would countenance such a thing.
Fred doesn’t support a fence, doesn’t support employer sanctions, but DOES support amnesty for those who have broken the law. Folksy charm and sugarcoating isn’t going to solve the issue either.
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-no-restrictionist.html
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.