Posted on 07/23/2007 3:39:55 AM PDT by pissant
This is old news. It was brought up by some now banned Rudy backers MONTHS ago.
And who is Thopson? :)
Came out today in the NY Post. I searched for it, and did not find it.
Their typo, not mine.
That’s a relief. If he was, I’d have to question whether Fred was the right guy. ;-)
True, it is old news. However there may be many who aren’t informed on this. Alot of people may not be too thrilled to learn that lobbying has been a Thompson family affair. I’m not and I just found out about it yesterday. So yes, old news and another red flag.
ROFL! He’d get excited by that.
That’s a pretty nifty PAC.
It’s one thing after another with him. He’s got a lot of ‘splaning to do should he ever get his act together enough to announce. I’m getting tired of people justifiying everything he does and actually I look forward to his answers and hope that they are much more specific than they have been.
I was mistaken, it wasn’t posted by a Rudy backer.
As Rudy found out, you can only give pretzel like answers for so long.
See post 10. That’s not good.
Read the rest of the thread there, Mary.
$2k for linseed ain’t good.
“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?”
He continues with a step by step look at Fred Thompson from a true conservative view point. Is Fred Thompson conservative? It depends on who you compare him with.
“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.”
Indeed. Viguerie looks at Fred's senate record and American Conservative Union (ACU) ratings to reach this conclusion. He writes:
"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 affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.
♦ 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.
And, last but not least:
♦ 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."
Just another notable achievement to add to NearlydeadMcFred's long list of "conservative" accomplishments, but he plays a conservative on TV.
What is so interesting in Post 10?
Yeah, it was posted here, and met with disdain by the Fredheads. I read it carefully. Some of the arguments were weak, others were right on the money. It’s no secret that Fred was considered a moderate for much of the 1990s.
Linseed Graham and Mike Dewine? Sould you spend pac money better than that?
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.