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 ...
All the money in the world wouldn’t twist my arm to vote for another repeat of Bush. All bluster and ZERO muster.
Fred doesn’t support a fence...
“If (putting up a fence) 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.”
“I don’t know”
REAL stong convictions there, Bub!
On the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owner’s Action League, Governor Romney declared May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”
At least Rudy is honest about being a gun-grabber. Mitt is a dishonest flip-flopper without any core principles on this issue, other than to do what is popular.
You can’t support the RKBA and oppose “Assault Weapons.”
Yeah, that one makes more sense. You may have a good point.
So he flipped on abortion. Good. He did not flip on gays or anything else alleged. There is no "there" there even if people want to say it over and over again if you research his actual record. Just because his enemies or competitors think it is a clever tag to pin on him due to his switch on abortion, it doesn't mean that it carries any validity. Just like the tag of lazy they want to pin on Fred. Easy to say, but what is the truth?
Who hasn't made any flip flops should throw the first stone, I guess.
-McCain flip-flopped on tax cuts, immigration, stem cells.
-Rudy flipped on PBA, Hyde Amendment.
-Fred flipped on abortion, immigration, CFR etc and so forth.
And, for the dems, well, we all know that Hillary was for the war before she was against it, among other things.
Changing or evolving positions is what politicians do. If they have a good reason for it and they flip in our direction then I can't fault them too much for that. Looks like McCain was the only one flipping in the wrong direction most of the time.
You keep going with that holier than thou stuff though.
Exactly my point Roger.
Yeah, well Reagan and Bush had the same flaw -- so he is in some good company. However, there is hope:
Gov. Romney was recently asked by Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall.com about renewing the federal AWB after the massacre at Virginia Tech:
MKH: Now, you supported an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. This tragedy is being used to push the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. What would your stance be if that comes up again?
Gov. Romney: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I’m not sure what the relevance is. And, that’s what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. You know, if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider. But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.
(EXCLUSIVE: Townhall.com sits down with Gov. Romney, April 20, 2007)
You probably aren't terribly exicited with Gov. Romney's answer, but he didn't say he would sign a federal AWB and chose instead to warn against the slow erosion of 2nd Amendment rights. That can give us some hope that he will listen to all sides of the argument and is open to persuasion on a subject --- just like he was on stem cells.
The record shows that every gun bill signed by Gov. Romney was endorsed by the NRA and/or the Gun Owners' Action League in Massachusetts. Romney left the state of Massachusetts in better shape concerning the 2nd Amendment than he found it. That is the best anyone could have done with an 85% Dem (veto-proof), anti-gun Legislature.
1986 REDUX!
What?
Fred is against the Senate bill.
I believe Thompson has alot of positives, he is a Southerner, and considering our opponent is going to be Edwards, we also need a son of the south on board.
I’m not so sure Thompson is the right guy though, based on the fact that he’s never been a governor. Being a Senator is different from holding an executive position. My personal contention is go with a southern governor. As far as Huckabee is concerned, he’s just a bit too Baptist for a national audience, and there is an issue regarding the fact that he pardoned a rapist who later went out and committed another crime. The states in the South with Republican governors are: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas and Mississippi.
Now, of these, the governor of Florida has been in office for all of 6 months, so he’s out. The governor of Missisippi is personally an attractive choice to me because of his Katrina work, but honestly, at this point in time, Mississippi can’t afford a change in leadership. South Carolina’s governor has shown no interest in it, and he has apparently done things to run afoul of the leadership of the state, meaning, alot of people would work to see him defeated.
So of these, you have two good state based candidates for the presidency, Governor of Georgia and Governor of Alabama. The governor of Georgia was elected on a promise to allow a vote on the 1956 flag, which he reneged on. However, he managed to survive outrage over that and win re-election. While this issue would hurt him some in Southern primaries, it would actually help him in Northern primaries, and in a general election, it would certainly help him by not being a stereotype. Also, from everything I have seen, he has governed in a conservative manner. Governors of Georgia also have a benefit in the Atlanta business community, which would desperately love for another Georgian to go to the White House because they would bring Georgians with them.
The Governor of Alabama would be another choice. His approval ratings were in the upper 20s throughout most of 2005 and yet he managed to come back, and defeat Roy Moore in the primary by a 2 to 1 margin, and then keep the governors office against his Democratic opponent. In doing this, he got the endorsement of every paper in the state, and for better or worse, is the first governor we have had to truly articulate a vision of running the state opposite of the Folsom-Wallace ideal. The main problem with him though is, looking out towards 2010, the statewide office picture seems to favor the Democrats. They are almost guaranteed to win the Lt. Governor’s office if Sparks runs, and if the establishment coalesces around Folsom early, that means the primary battle will be a primarily Republican one. If the governor was actually elected President, it pretty much ensures that we probably have a Democratic governor in 2011.
I’d feel better about Thompson if he had been a governor, but I think along with the governors of AL and GA, he presents the best chance to win the White House against John Edwards.
You might wanna check this thread before you go too far with this AWB thing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1855149/posts
The NRA analyzed the legislation and said what they said about Mass. Those quotes don’t override the legislation. Your attempts to distort the facts are futile.
Thompson is the most conservative electable candidate, and he has my support unless he does something really stupid.
How conservative compared to whom... There are always warts, just look at what Bush is up to these days.
This isn’t a matter of cost-of-living so much as it is a threat to all businesses. Yes, I believe this is one example where we absolutely need federal reform. It’s like I was suggesting with South Carolina. If that’s the only state with a law that provides a loophole for a tort lawyer, it allows a class-action suit to be filed on behalf of people from all states throughout the nation. Or it allows someone who is only tangentially affected in South Carolina to file suit for damages suffered in Oklahoma. Venue shopping is a real issue in this country.
And it’s something that affects us at a national level. Our businesses are paying enormous insurance premiums to fend off lawsuits. This isn’t about handing businesses a check. It’s about giving them a break. By limiting non-economic damages in tort cases, you not only diminish insurance premiums, but you also diminish the number of fraudulent lawsuits by diminishing expected payouts.
In every state where tort reform has been enacted, the cost of medical malpractice insurance has declined or remained steady (as compared to the sky-rocketing premiums paid throughout the rest of the country). This works well for medical claims in states that have been able to pass tort reform, but physicians are generally state-certified and insurance providers are often state-limited.
Another tort reform badly needed is limiting joint and several liability. And here is a perfect example of where national tort reform is needed. Company A produces a product that injures someone. But company B makes a component of this product. Company B has very deep pockets, and so the injured individual shops for a venue (i.e. a state) that does not have proportionate liability but has joint and several liability. Company B may at best have very minor involvement in process that caused the injury to the plaintiff, but they may be just as liable in a state where joint and several liability is practiced. If that product is sold in such a state, guess where that lawsuit is going to be filed? Obviously in the state where both pockets are equally accessible.
You need to be careful with this. One way of protecting the little guy is to enact a “loser pays” system as is seen in Britain. That way, you don’t have corporations endlessly holding up lawsuits, just waiting to bankrupt the little guy in legal fees.
It should be noted that the United States is the most litigious society on earth. This is greatly detrimental to our businesses as we try to compete with corporations in Asia. And we’re losing right now. Our levels of corportate taxation and insurance premiums are absolutely higher than what you see abroad. It’s killing us.
And I actually agree with you. Tort reform is best done at the state level. But we need to have federal groundwork to address the issues of venue shopping, etc..
I think Romney is particularly strong in this area:
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=47261
And I don’t mean to make this a Romney-Thompson fight. I like Thompson. Tort reform is just one area where I prefer Romney.
Oh so you want to pursue this argument? :) ok. well, let me tell you... it took a Carter to make me a Republican and it took this Bush, the wishy washy Republican congress we have had for the last 8 years, but MOST importantly, the realization that perhaps I am not a Republican after all. When I saw what I call the "left wing of the Republican party" push for homo Guliani, then I realized I could not possibly belong in the same party with this bunch who have no respect or any consideration for the principles and beliefs of a fellow Republican group such as the Christian right or any "social conservatives." You can call Gulliani anyting but a social conservative imo and therefore I don't feel proud to be a Republican anymore... perhaps I never was one I admit. I am a SOCIAL VALUES conservative first, main reason for which I moved over to the Republican party. I remain a staunch Social conservative and Republican fourth. I am becoming an "independent" very soon. So as you can see, your argument does not hold water in my case.
Satisfied? :)
I am a strong supporter of tort reform, however, I oppose any and all attempts at federal tort reform legislation. We may be tort hell, but thats what our legislature wants. The way to fix it is to elect a better legislature, not to pass a national law.
I think it is dangerous that we have so many people who are willing to pass national legislation for an idea “conservative” in nature. The bedrock principle of the party is supposed to be state’s rights.
This article is outright contortionist. Most painfully convoluted spinning I’ve read in a long time.
redgirlinabluestate wrote: “Nice soundbites, but where’s the beef? It’s a false argument made by RINOS and liberals against Mitt since there is nothing else to attack him on”
Rich Lowry is hardly a RINO or a liberal. Same goes for the editors of Human Events, one of th most conservative publications there is.
Human Events called Mitt not just a RINO, but one of the worst 10 RINOs in 1985. Now, less than two years later, Romney is trying to make us believe that he’s a committed conservative. In reality, he’s a chameleon
Sorry, I’m not buyin’ that particular snake oil, and from the looks of things, neither are a whole lot of other conservatives.
Mitt’s had his time in the sun. Now, like Giuliani and John, he’s going down. Conservatives are discovering that they don’t have to settle for Rudy McRomney!
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.