Posted on 08/21/2007 9:04:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee, who has not officially declared his presidential ambitions, took a not-very-veiled swipe yesterday at the leading Republican candidate, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, for supporting gun control.
Mr. Thompson, who starred in Law & Order, wrote on his Web site: When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws dont fall in that category.
Then he decried a recent court ruling on a gun case, writing that the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giulianis administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again.
The critique amounted to an unusual dive into presidential politicking for a man who is barred under federal rules from acting like a candidate. Mr. Thompson is officially only testing the waters of a presidential bid, a status that limits his ability to raise money and engage in active campaigning. But his comments suggest that he is ready to come out against the other contenders in the Republican field.
In his comments, Mr. Thompson went on to suggest that high gun ownership rates may be related to the nations low violent crime rates.
The Giuliani campaign responded. Those who live in New York in the real world not on TV know that Rudy Giulianis record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself, said Katie Levinson, the Giuliani campaigns communications director. No amount of political theater will change that.
Mr. Giuliani has been leading consistently in national polls of the Republican field. But his status has also opened him up to increasing scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
True!
He needs to get well defined position papers/speechs out there. To the extent that Rudy's his target, there's no shortage of issues Thompson can differentiate himself with, including gun control.
Fred is the best shot at a conservative winner we have.
I like Hunter and Huckabee too but they have no chance...so let’s all get behind the one conservative that can win.....Fred Thompson.
From what I’ve seen so far, Thompson looks like someone who’s not afraid of playing the publicity-wars game - and may even have the gumption to be pro-active rather than reactive.
Absolutely. The bottom line is this.
The Republican Party (and even the Rudy-Apologists) WILL rally and unite behind a conservative.
The Party will NOT rally and unite (because the conservative base will NOT abandon its traditional values and principles) behind a liberal like Guiliani.
Considering your candidate is gung ho for banning "assault weapons" and says the people don't have the right to own guns made for shooting people --
best you just slink away to your little Mitt fan club.
I did--because it WASN'T a proposition requiring a balanced budget (that is already in the State Constitution). The proposition you are probably referring to was being sold as a "spending cap." Unfortunately, it did nothing to curb spending for at least a decade and actually authorized more debt. (You gotta read the fine print--not the Arnold propaganda machine headlines!)
Before labeling all California voters as stupid, perhaps you should become more familiar with the issues.
That's because they ALL agree with him. Rudy, Mitt, McLAME .... so far all the so called TOP TIER candidates are gun grabbers of the highest order.
A few, like Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment, too bad they've got a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected. Fred is both a true conservative AND he's totally electable.
Especially in light of the front running RAT'S negatives. Hillary is the annoited one for their nomination and I'll bet a ton of Dems would vote against her just for who she is and what she represents! Same for Barack and even more so for HIM.
OTOH, if the 'Pubbie nominee is anybody BUT Fred Thompson, I wouldn't give a Hoot in Hell for the chances of victory. I for one will switch my Party affiliation from "R" to "I" and I won't vote. I refuse to vote to cut my own throat. It will mean that the mainstream of my own party to which I've been so loyal for the past 32 years will have literally walked away from my core values and beliefs.
Here is the propostion. You might want to read it again...
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire76.pdf
Look who opposed this legislation. They were all big labor unions including the California Teachers Association, the California Nurses Association, California Professional Firefighters, California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations. All wanted to keep the river of debt money flowing into their pockets.
Which are you? Teacher, Nurse, Firefighter or LEO?
I am constantly confused by the machinations of this State of California but I have come to feel that Tom McClintock is one of the very, very few California politicians who sincerely wants to see a return to sane budgetary and spending practices in California.
This is what Tom McClintock had to say about Proposition 76, the "live within our means act"...
"Restoring the authority of the governor to halt this states chronic deficit spending is at the heart of the Live Within Our Means Act, and with the adoption of this budget, it is now about the only thing that stands between our state and financial insolvency. We would be well advised to adopt that measure right here as an adjunct to this budget."
The measure even went beyond a mere spending cap and would have attempted to reform problems with the current budget, problems such as education having guaranteed minimum spending levels regardless of revenue (by % of budget), and problems such as Politicians continued raid on transportation money that should go to fixing bridges and highway potholes, despite a PREVIOUS proposition that was passed and that was supposed to prevent future raids on transportation money.
I'm no genius and maybe you are and I'm wrong. But between my reading of the proposition, knowing who supported and who opposed it, and knowing that Tom McClintock felt it was a mandatory piece of legislation -- well, I'll take his opinion over yours any day. Yes, you and others voting against Prop 76 were just plain stupid to do so.
Every California conservative I know (including those on FR that are very well informed) opposed Prop 76.
Here are some of the reasons:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503116/posts?page=5#5
It was a rare moment than any of us broke with Senator McClintock who was, in this case, going along to be a good “team player” showing support for Arnie, IMO. Since that time, he’s given up on Arnold’s faux-conservative proposals.
This proposition was the worst of worst as in many cases it did the opposite of what was described. The provision regarding education formulas that you cite actually guaranteed that education spending would NEVER go down. See more at the link above.
The Party will NOT rally and unite (because the conservative base will NOT abandon its traditional values and principles) behind a liberal like Guiliani.
I'm amazed at how many FReepers can't understand this simple concept. Romney and Giuliani are nothing more then east coast liberals who are trying to pass themselves off as Republicans. I cannot in good conscience vote for either. To do so would be to betray my strongly-held beliefs, and I won't do that.
LOL! I think you win the argument!
.
I don't know. I thought Rudy was a great movie. Some think it was a little overdone by Hollywood. I like Fred too. My favorite episode of the Flintsones was the Daddy's Anonymous one.
Yes, I am aware that many conservatives voted against Prop 76, because it didn’t go far enough. Just as many conservatives allowed the Democrats to retake the house and Senate because Bush is a New World Order moderate who didn’t go far enough to please conservatives.
Just like Conservatives would not vote for a social liberal like Giuliani and would let Hillary ascend the throne as a result.
Sometimes you have to take the best deal you have and not the dream you will never achieve.
My take on the changes to school funding are that Prop 76 was a net good thing. It looks like they eliminated the automatic return to high spending in the good years, and the trade-off was no automatic reduction in spending during bad years. Since we tend to see many more good years than bad, this would have reduced school spending, in my opinion. By keeping the automatic floor, we are stuck with the automatic ceiling, and we are currently paying the price.
Prop 76 was voted down. We kept the status quo. And you are telling me we are better off, as if somebody on a white horse is going to come in and give you the ideal spending restraints you want in a socialist run blue state. This is never going to happen. So by voting against 76, we get stuck with the status quo and we are going to see one massive budget crisis after another.
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.