Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson

He disappointed conservatives during his eight years in the Senate. Is there any reason to think this Washington insider and veteran trial lawyer would be any better as President?

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the “new Reagan”—a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton’s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, “A Star Is Born.”

He turned out to be a shooting star—a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, “A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet.”

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House’s Asia fundraising scandal (“Asiagate”), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative. In fact, now that he’s running for President, Thompson is trying to flip-flop on this issue. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide from his record.

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose—its claim to being a “reform”—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it’s been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of “reform” legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren’t threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups.

McCain-Feingold, the most prominent recent addition to campaign regulations, does this by prohibiting these groups from broadcasting any issue ads that refer to specific candidates for federal office in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election.

Why were those dates chosen? Because “that’s when people are most interested in the elections,” according to Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), one of the law’s most ardent supporters. In other words, McCain-Feingold and similar laws are intended to silence the voices of ordinary citizens who contribute to these organizations. And they are designed to do so at exactly the times when grassroots citizens can have the greatest impact.

The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson. Indeed, campaign finance “reform” was the only issue on which he seemed to show any passion.

Thompson was deeply involved in writing the law, lobbied for it among his fellow Republicans, and was even inclined to call it “McCain-Feingold-Thompson.” He and McCain were able to convince only five of their fellow Republicans in the Senate—but added to the Democrats, that was enough. “You were essential to our success,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Thompson in a gushing thank-you note after passage of McCain-Feingold.

Fred Thompson viewed through the Goldwater Test and the Reagan Test for conservative leadership

The Goldwater Test: Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhower’s policies were “a dime store New Deal,” he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.

Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now it’s no longer a dime store New Deal—it’s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.

And what has been Fred Thompson’s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he’s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he’s said it so quietly that nobody—not just us, nobody—has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit.

The Reagan Test: Throughout the 1960s and 70s Ronald Reagan walked with conservatives. He was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table—he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood. Also, our conservative friends were all around him as he governed in California and then ran for President—people like Dick Allen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Marty Anderson, Paul Laxalt, Judge Bill Clark…and the list goes on.

Where are the long-time conservative activists today around Fred Thompson? Not campaign consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder at campaign auctions. No, dedicated and recognized conservative thinkers and activists who will work only for truly conservative politicians.

Go ahead, try and name one. And if conservatives were not part of his inner circle before he started running for the presidency, we cannot expect him to have conservatives in his inner circle if he gets elected. And in politics, personnel is policy.

When we look at the two politicians who are closest to Thompson—Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander—we can see very clearly why Fred will never be a conservative leader, much less a conservative hero.

Fred Thompson and Howard Baker are as intertwined as the two sides of a coin. Fred Thompson was Howard Baker’s campaign manager in his successful reelection campaign in 1972, after which the two were good ole’ Tennessee buddies. Senator Baker invited Thompson to move up north and be minority (Republican) counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of Richard Nixon.

Thompson, it is said, was the person who got Senator Baker to ask a Nixon aide: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The reply led to the discovery of the Nixon tapes, and that led to Nixon’s resignation. Almost sounds like something scripted in Hollywood or on the set of “Law and Order.”

Thompson and Baker are still good ole’ buddies today, with Baker urging Thompson to make this run for the presidency and playing a key role in its unfolding. Officially or unofficially, we could expect Howard Baker to play a key role in a Thompson White House.

And who, you ask, is Howard Baker? You belie your age, of course, by asking that, but even old folks may be excused for a little fuzziness on this matter. Well, Howard Baker was one of the chain of leaders of the liberal (Big Government) wing of the Republican Party. The order of succession was Nelson Rockefeller-Howard Baker-George H. W. Bush-George W. Bush. Because he never got to the White House as its #1 or #2 occupant, Howard Baker has sort of faded into history, but he was important in his heyday—and on the opposite side of the ideological fence from conservatives.

As Republican leader of the Senate, Howard Baker worked with President Carter to turn the Panama Canal over to the drug-running Panamanian dictatorship. He voted to spend taxpayers’ money for abortions. As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he said Reagan’s proposed tax cuts were “a riverboat gamble.” You get the picture. And this guy is still Fred Thompson’s closest advisor.

As for Senator Lamar Alexander (who’s up for reelection in 2008), he’s cut from the same cloth as Baker and Thompson—talk conservative but act like a “moderate” (i.e., liberal); above all, avoid sharp ideological confrontation with the Democrats. “The conservatism he exemplifies…,” wrote Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine, “is no longer a program. It is a style of talking.”

Like Thompson, Lamar Alexander got his first job in Washington from Howard Baker; and when Thompson dropped out of the Senate in 2002 to return to lobbying, trial lawyering, and show biz, Alexander replaced him.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, because Fred Thompson passes the Sally Quinn Test

Fred Thompson may get an F on the Goldwater Test and an F on the Reagan Test, but he gets an A on the Sally Quinn Test. And that tells us a lot.

Sally Quinn is a noted writer and the wife of Ben Bradlee, long-time editor of the Washington Post. You can’t get more to the center of the Liberal Establishment in Washington than this power-couple. And on June 26, 2007, she penned a telling bombshell in the Post on Fred Thompson.

Vice President Dick Cheney is “toxic” and “has the potential to drag down every member of the party—including the presidential nominee—in next year’s elections,” she advises, so the movers and shakers in the GOP must convince President Bush to force Cheney to resign.

“Until recently, there hasn’t been an acceptable alternative to Cheney…,” she admits. “Now there is.” (And by now you can guess who.)

“Everybody loves Fred,” gushes Sally. “He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor. He could be just the partner to bring out Bush’s better nature…”

I had never known Sally Quinn to be so concerned before about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and I am shocked that she allows for even the possibility of a “better nature” in President Bush. Be that as it may, we can see what’s going on here. She rightfully sees Fred Thompson as a marshmallow—oops, I mean “peacemaker” and “compromiser.” As the sitting Vice President in 2008, he would have the inside track on getting the GOP nomination. And liberals could rest easy, knowing their power is safe whether the Democrat or the Marshmallow Republican wins in 2008.

I have examined Fred Thompson’s eight-year record as a Senator in detail, utilizing the vote ratings of the American Conservative Union (ACU) at www.acuratings.org. He emerges not as an out-and-out liberal, but not as a principled conservative either.

Fred Thompson’s record may appear to be “conservative,” but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.

For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didn’t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume it’s because that’s what he believed.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

There’s a lot of confusion about where Fred Thompson stands on the abortion issue.

During his Senate years, the Memphis Commercial Appeal described him as “basically pro-choice on abortion,” The Tennessean described him as “a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt,” and National Review deemed him to be “pro-choice.”

Yet his voting record as a Senator was solidly pro-life, earning him high marks on pro-life voting records and bottom-of-the-barrel ratings from abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Leaders of social conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum have had praise for his social-issues record.

How can this be? How can the conservative National Review and Tennessee’s leading newspapers describe him as “pro-choice” when his voting record is the opposite? The confusion results largely because Thompson takes—to use one of Washington’s favorite words—a “nuanced” position on abortion, and then sometimes compounds the confusion with conflicting statements. In addition, his role as a Washington Insider—a Washington lobbyist—raises disturbing questions that have not been answered satisfactorily by Thompson.

One of Fred Thompson’s deepest held political convictions is his belief in federalism—that the federal government should stick to the powers granted it in the Constitution, leaving everything else to the states or the people. That’s great--if he actually voted as a federalist on the host of issues ranging from presidential power to education. The one area where he does take a pretty consistent federalist position, however, is on the abortion question.

“I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision,” Thompson says, and “that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.”

Because he believes abortion essentially should be a state matter, not a federal matter, Thompson has voted repeatedly against federal funding of abortion in Department of Defense facilities and says he opposes public financing of abortions for low-income Medicaid recipients. The same federalist reasoning, however, is presumably what also leads him to oppose (in a Christian Coalition questionnaire) a constitutional amendment “protecting the sanctity of human life” as well as federal legislation “protecting the sanctity of human life.” I say “presumably” because Fred Thompson himself has never really explained his seemingly conflicted statements and positions on abortion in a comprehensive and logical way.

Thompson is not against abortion per se, since he says he doesn’t know whether life begins at conception. At least that was the position he took before he started running for President.

“I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions,” he told the Conservative Spectator, a Tennessee newspaper, in 1994. “It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.” “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,” he told another newspaper. And in his Christian Coalition questionnaire, he penciled in: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This matter will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

Note that when he explained why he opposes Roe v. Wade on federalism grounds, he ended up saying: “When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.” “Leeway” obviously is code for “the states should allow some abortions.”

Thompson has, however, voted consistently against partial birth abortion. There’s no doubt that life has started in those late-term situations.

Fred Thompson the “conservative” politician vs. Fred Thompson the pro-abortion lobbyist

New information uncovered by the Los Angeles Times indicates that Thompson has lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights organization.

The official minutes of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) document that the group hired Thompson in 1991 to try to influence the George H. W. Bush Administration to loosen the restrictions that prevented federal funding from going to clinics that engage in abortion counseling.

Thompson’s support for federal funding of abortion is vividly recalled by the President of the NFPRHA, Judy DeSarno; the Director of Government Relations, Sarah Szanton; and a member of the Board of Directors, Susan Cohen.

To be fair, Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, has denied ever talking to Thompson about abortion. That may mean that Thompson either spoke to other officials in the White House or took the NFPRHA’s money and did nothing for them.

He would personally rejoice if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, at least according to some of his statements on abortion. For the sake of argument, let us grant him that sentiment. But if vacancies occur in the court during his presidency, would he have the fortitude to nominate and fight for judges who share his federalist sentiments and on that basis vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? And would he do so particularly if he faced a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, as seems likely?

Nothing in his past suggests that he would fight. The Nelson Rockefeller/Howard Baker/Poppy Bush wing of the party, of which Thompson is an integral part by virtue of the umbilical cord between Thompson and Baker, has always believed in accommodation rather than confrontation. You accommodate the Democrats, as Thompson himself did in his “Asiagate” investigation, and you can bet your entire rainy-day fund that the Democrats won’t accommodate a Supreme Court nominee who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Accommodation on this issue is a one-way street. Any accommodation would be done by President Thompson.

As far as other abortion-related politicking is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that abortion is a key issue anywhere near the top of Fred Thompson’s “to do” list. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” was Senator Thompson excuse, as told to The Tennessean. And later, when a pro-abortion group needed a Republican Insider to represent its views at the White House, we now know—from the minutes of the group’s meetings—who they turned to: Washington lobbyist Fred Thompson.

In short, a President Thompson would give pro-life conservatives some supportive rhetoric but little action. So what else is new?

Fred Thompson was a key architect of one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent years—the speech-muzzling McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Fred Thompson cast votes in the Senate that increased the power of the federal government, limited the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and sought to shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Fred Thompson fails the Goldwater Test with a grade of F: He did not speak out against the Republican Big Government rampage of the past seven years.

Fred Thompson fails the Reagan Test with a grade of F: He has never walked with us or surrounded himself with conservatives or fought our fights.

Fred Thompson has instead been a protégé of one of the icons of liberal Republicanism, Howard Baker, who continues to be his key advisor.

Fred Thompson plays a tough guy in the movies and on television, but in real life he is a marshmallow who would pose no threat to the Big Government Establishment that continues to dominate Washington.

Fred Thompson is, in fact, a Washington insider and part of that Big Government Establishment through his eight years as a go-along Senator and even more years as a trial lawyer and Washington lobbyist.

For the past year, I have been preaching to conservatives that we should not align ourselves with those who have fatal flaws from a conservative perspective. The imminent entrance of Fred Thompson in the race doesn’t change a thing, for the reasons I have demonstrated here.

Conservatives, let’s keep our powder dry. The GOP has taken us for granted in supporting their political agenda. Conservatives should make candidates come to us, and let’s make them prove that they are worthy of our support.

"An extra observation:

"Mother was absolutely right. You are judged by the company you keep. And I don’t like the company FDT keeps."

I would remind you, and anyone else with this argument, that the only perfect man ever born on this earth was also judged by the company He kept. Be careful who you brand because of their company.

Thus far most of what I have seen come from FDT has been what we want. I have also seen how the MSM tries to smear anyone they oppose. Mr. Viguerie has already illustrated his thoughts on past conservatives. I haven't checked on it yet, but I would not be surprised to find he spoke out against Goldwater as well.

One last thought on this and I'll go back under my rock. Pundits that speak out against popular candidates using the MSM as primary source should be seriously questioned and treated with the utmost distrust. Mr. Viguerie clearly used such in his article. You just have to take the time to search the FR archives to find the rebuttals to all his arguments and the MSM sources for each of his. :^)

Now, where did I put that candle? Ahah! (Thump)

Go ahead and ping the founder of FreeRepublic all you want.

FR is not a propanganda site to create "files" making Fred's voting record look flawless so we can elect him President, if you want one then start your own site called FredRepublic.com. Fred is not perfect and it is an established fact he cast poor votes on ILLEGAL (let me repeat that word again: ILLEGAL immigration), and you can whine all you want about how unfair it is for other people to discuss it and how you want files listing the other times Fred voted correctly on immigration. Fred has a "C" record, if you want to list the votes where he was right on immigration, you are free to do so.

Now, here's the problem. You keep insisting NumbersUSA is giving Fred bad scores simply because he supported more LEGAL immigration. That's interesting, Duncan Hunter scored an A+ from NumbersUSA. Since they give bad grades for all LEGAL immigration votes, I guess Duncan must be for sealing the border perputally and never allowing another foriegner to LAWFULLY enter this country, right? Get a life. NumbersUSA penalized Fred for bad votes on ILLEGAL immigration, and you if you don't like it that's too bad. Here are those bills:

=========================================================================

S.1664

S.1664 protected businesses from having to pay higher fines when they are caught hiring ILLEGAL aliens. Under the idea that current fines were not enough of a deterrent against businesses cutting their labor costs by hiring ILLEGAL aliens, the Senate immigration subcommittee approved higher fines. Various study commissions have found that the willingness of U.S. businesses to hire ILLEGAL aliens is the No. 1 incentive for foreign workers to become ILLEGAL aliens here. But Sen. Fred Thompson voted with a 10-8 majority in the Judiciary Committee to remove the higher fines from the 1996 legislation against ILLEGAL immigration.

So tell us, shy do you agree that Fred's vote on the Judiciary Committee was correct? Please feel free to let us know why employers should have to pay lower fines when they are caught employing criminal aliens who are UNLAWFULLY in the U.S. ?

========================================================================

Abraham Amendment to stop voluntary verification system

The program established by S. 1664 were intended to assist employers in determining whether the person they hired was UNLAWFULLY in the United States with NO LEGAL RIGHT to work in this country. Such verification is considered by many experts to be an essential tool for withdrawing the job magnet from ILLEGAL aliens. The verification system established by S.1664 did NOT involve an ID card. Rather it provided that when new workers wrote down their Social Security number on an application, employers could phone into a national verification system to help assure that the number was a real number and belonged to the person giving it. In earlier smaller pilot programs, businesses had hailed the verification system for making it easier for them to avoid hiring ILLEGAL aliens. Sen. Thompson voted IN FAVOR of the Abraham Amendment to S.1664. Fred Thompon was part of a coalition of pro-business conservatives and liberal civil libertarians who tried to use the amendment to kill the establishment of voluntary pilot programs in high-immigration states. Sen. Fred Thompson was unsuccessful in stopping the voluntary verification system.

So tell us, if Fred's vote was correct, why was it a good idea to prevent this, successfully-tested program that would allow employers to crack down on ILLEGAL aliens that slipped through their hiring system?

=======================================================================

Mack Amendment to S. 1156

Sen. Thompson voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States ILLEGALLY since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the AMNESTY, as it was inlcuded in the DC Appropriations bill. The only opportunity Senators had to vote in favor of or against the AMNESTY was the Mack Amendment to S.1156.

Michelle Malkin listed the fact that there have been seven "mini-amnesties" since the 1986 act. The Niacarianian amnesty is one such vote. I know you'd really wish you could pretend those Nicaraguans "refugees" had entered the country through the proper legal channels and Fred's vote was to speed up permanately residency for those poor widdle refugees paticenly awaiting their green cards from the government, but the fact is they BROKE THE LAW to enter this country and Fred supporting giving AMNESTY to ILLEAGAL aliens who had NO RIGHT to be here. There are many, many provisions for people to seek sancuriary in America illegal. If these people were "refugees", they could have gotten one easily, but they choose to sneak into this country ILLEGALLY.

=======================================================================

What part of the word ILLEGAL don't you understand? I know you really WISH Fred's votes were to remove fines for LEGAL aliens and allow more job access for LEGAL immigrants, but the bad votes Fred cast were clearly to reward ILLEGAL aliens. You cry all you want that NumbersUSA is against Fred for hiring legals, that won't make it true.

You stated that Reagan surrounded himself with conservatives.

I concur.

You imply that CFR members cannot be conservative.

Therefore, using your logic, the fact that over half of Reagan’s transition team and over 200 members of his administration were CFR members means:

1. Reagan indeed DID NOT walk with conservatives.

2. It is entirely possible that conservative and possibly non globalist individuals are members of the Council on Foreign Relations...

James Baker, Don Regan, George Shultz, Sandra O’Connor, the list of people who both walked closely with Reagan and were/are CFR members is long.

So again, Reagan seems to be your conservative model, and I agree whole heartedly, so I have to wonder where exactly does this hatred/fear of the CFR come from? It is a think tank with a wide variety of powerful members from all sides.

I salute your strong support of Duncan Hunter, he is indeed a fine man, you do him an injustice with the fallacy of the argument.

“No shock that in the end, neither Romney and Thompson give a rip about applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the protection of persons in the womb. In other words, they are out of step with the Reagan Republican pro-life platform.”

Wrong. They are not in lockstep with you 100%, so you denounce them in extreme ways. Most normal people see their opposition to roe v wade and their support for unborn life as sufficient to call them ‘prolife’, no matter what you say.
In fact, the Reagan Republican “pro-life platform” calls for a *constitutional amendment* to protect unborn life. You are out of step with the party’s platform, concepts of judicial restraint, and basic federalism and limited governmnet if you think the 14th amendment already bars what a Constitutional human life amendment would. Practically speaking, Roe would be overturned soon if we put 2 more conservative judges on the bench; the amendment would never happen; thus, the best path forward is the one Thompson and Romney advocate. You dont save lifes or defend liberty when you pervert Constituional amendments beyond their purpose.

you are practically a shill for the Soros-left, doing your best to sow dissention and disunity and bad political thinking and practices; your ways are the ways of extremists who lose. A much better activist and GOP leader gave some good advice: Dont be against things, be FOR things. All your braying and denouncing everybody who doesnt share your view on the 14th amendment has saved this many unborn humans from abortion: Zero.

It’s time you stopped bashing those who don’t agree with you 100% and strated supported and helping those who agree with you 95% (that’s still an “A” on the curve).

>> Fred Thompson on Immigration
Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007) <<

==============================================

John McCain on Immigration
Have never supported amnesty and never would (Republican Primary debate, 2007)
National security is first and foremost. Border security is a national security problem. We need to act. (2006)

=================================================

George W. Bush on Immigration
Need to resolve illegal immigration without amnesty (2007, state of the union address)
Securing The Border Is Essential To Securing The Homeland. (2005)

==========================================

Mel Martinez on Immigration
Strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. (2004)
Immigration policy should first and foremost ensure the security of our nation (2004)
Support a plan that matches workers with needy employers without providing a path to citizenship. (2004)

===============================================

Thank goodness we can trust politicians when they make it clear they're "against amnesty" in all circumstances. After all, granting a "path to citizenship" (or "asipirations of citizenship" to the "undocumented" doesn't count as amnesty, don't ya know?

Oh and this "On the Issues 2008" site is far less accurate than NumbersUSA. Check on Arlen Specter's "record" on abortion there and it says "27% rating from NARAL, indicatating a pro-life record".

In reality, Arlen Specter is one of the most vocally pro-abortion Senators in the nation, and has said so himself many times that his prime objective is to "protect a woman's right to choose".

I’m PERSONALLY hoping enough Americans will come to their senses, stop praying for a knight on a white horse to come charging to their rescue in the upcoming presidential beauty contest and elect 300 or so men who have read the Constitution outside a required civics class — and UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.

Should THAT happen, the klintoons could somehow slither back into the White House (not a likely prospect given the 300 good guys swept in on the east end of Pennsylvania Avenue) — AND IT WOULDN’T MATTER as the gang on Capitol Hill would reach for their cajones, FIND THEM and refuse to fund their expansion of the socialist welfare state overseen by an imperial presidency Nixon could only DREAM about.

That said, I respect and admire Ron Paul (there, I’ve SAID IT and stand ready to be further abused!) BUT realize that the current war fervor makes him pretty nearly unelectable. My next choice would be Duncan. He SEEMS to have Ron’s grasp of the Constitution AND a real-world understanding that the current struggle with militant islam is simply the next stage in the Crusades, picking up where Richard the 1st and Saladin left off. Actually, for those who know that history, it never really STOPPED. It just went dormant for periods of time.

Like the alien in “Independence Day,” these people want us “To die!”

Having said that, once the muslim threat is hopefully subdued, I’d hope we would revisit the FOREIGN POLICY wisdom of Washington and Jefferson in re. “foreign entanglements” and, unless and until clear, well-defined national interest and safety is actually threatened, stay the hell out of other nations’ business and politics.

In fact, I think Washington and Jefferson might relate to this as a pragmatic move in the right direction:

NOTICE TO ALL FOREIGN CITIZENS and THEIR GOVERNMENTS!
(EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)

1. As a sovereign nation, you have the same rights to govern your nation as we have. Whether freely elected or despotic tyranny, how you run your government and DOMESTIC affairs is between you and your leaders. If you people don’t like how your government is behaving, we suggest you read some American history for the period between, say, 1774 and 1789. The world is awash in various sorts of small arms and other weapons. Getting enough to turn out your tyrant-du-jour ought not be a problem. Yes, many people will die (just as they did HERE in the late 1700s). It’s the price of freedom. But — and this is important to us — our SOLDIERS will not be among the dead. But trust us when we tell you that the casualties of your revolution will pale compared to those you will suffer should we be forced to invoke Clause 3!

2. Please pay SPECIAL attention to the word “domestic” in number 1.

3. The MINUTE we become privy to firm, corroborated intelligence that you have plans to harm the United States or one of our recognized allies — or, worst case — DO, in fact carry out such an operation, the United States and any such allies who wish to assist will come to you and request that you cease and desist. If you refuse to do so, we will TURN MOST OF YOUR LAND INTO A SMOKING RUIN. (If you’ve never seen RUBBLE BOUNCE, it’s quite a sight. We saw a good bit of that on 9/11 – and will never forget it.) We include in this list of threats AIDING, ABETTING, HARBORING, TRAINING OR SUPPLYING THOSE WHO, ALTHOUGH NOT CITIZENS OF YOUR NATION, MAKE PLANS TO HARM US OR AN ALLY.

We wish to live and trade in peace with all peoples — BUT harm us or injure/kill American/allied citizens AND YOUR WORLD AS YOU HAVE KNOWN IT WILL SIMPLY GO AWAY — FOREVER.

(If you have never seen it, slide on down to Blockbuster and rent “The Day the Earth Stood Still” with Arabic/Farsi subtitles, of course. REREAD 3 AND THINK “GORT.”)

4. Once those smoking ruins have sufficiently cooled – and the radiation levels have fallen — we will put boots on the ground, clear any remaining resistance and seize your former property for the benefit of those who participated in the neutralization of the threat you posed. Casualties among our troops should be very limited because, as we think you have seen, the weapons possessed by the United States will leave very few to resist. REREAD 4 AND THINK 51st STATE!

QUESTIONS????

Thank you for your support in this vital matter.
The SANE People of the United States of America

Until this becomes our policy, we continue to honor those who have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms so many of us now take for granted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WDrbbtaO0E

A photo was recently posted on the web showing a white board in a Marine barracks in Iraq on which one trooper had written the following:

“America is NOT at war. The United States Marine Corps is at war. America is at the MALL!”

Indeed!

Abuse alarm set and donning second pair of asbestos coveralls...

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.