Oops, sorry, I'm listening to the '70s station.
'Scuse moi.
Posted on 09/03/2007 3:24:18 PM PDT by asparagus
Pudge? Unfortunately, he disappeared a couple of years ago now. He would go missing for several days at a time, and when he returned, he was well fed and smelled like a woman had been holding him....but no woman from my house. We think he finally “moved in” with somebody not to far away, but we’re not sure. We’d rather think that anyway. It’s better than thinking that a fox got him. He was the best farm cat we ever had. :-)
*snicker*
Yeah, that’s the best briefest description of Romney I’ve ever read. He makes your average streetwalker look respectable.
Well I get my cats fixed so they don’t wonder!
He was fixed, but wandered some anyway. A neighborhood on the edge of town about a half mile from here was built just before he went missing. I think he moved into a big place over there. It’s hard to say though. :-)
judging by this thread, someone called "raving lunatic" would win going away.
Oops, sorry, I'm listening to the '70s station.
'Scuse moi.
“”I wouldn’t be surprised if all of the GOP Presidential candidates, who are participating in the September 5 New Hampshire Debate, take their turns at attacking Fred Thompson’s absence,””
I’m going to listen just to hear the zingers, they will be trying to steal some of the juice out of his announcement, and if their zinger is good enough, it will get their name mentioned along side his for a few days.
Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
Not exactly Mitt’s strongest suits.
Nice hair, though.
Your exposure of the hypocrisy is unmatched.
Limit is not abolish.
The amendment purpose was "To provide food stamp benefits to child immigrants." Thompson voted "nay." That's as positive as it gets on that vote, isn't it?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00116
And you mentioned the 1996 law that Fred voted on--the one I posted was in 97. But no matter, suppose it IS incorrect. OK, that's ONE thing you can cross off the list. There are still dozens left.
I know -- the Mack amendment that I referenced clarified the 1996 law. That major error means that all Numbers USA claims require closer scrutiny. Rather than cherrypicking, I went to the 1996 bill (which is by far the most significant illegal immigration bill that came up in Thompson's Senate tenure), examined his every vote on every amendment, and read the debate in the Congressional Record to get a more detailed understanding of the votes (I've briefly catalogued this and listed it below).
My summary: Thompson voted in favor of this tough anti-illegal immigration bill. He voted for tough border enforcement in the bill, including one that only 19 other senators supported (allowing the INS to search open fields without a warrant if they have probable cause). He also voted against multple attempts to extend welfare benefits to both legal and illegal immigrants That conflicts with his single vote on the Exon amendment in 1995. Finally, he repeatedly voted against attempts to make deportation of illegal immigrants more difficult
Overall, it appears (I'm just guessing from what I've found) that he considers border enforcement and elimination of welfare benefits a better solution than employer verification. One of the issues with employer verification is whether employers must verify the status of all applicants (which would likely necessitate a Giuliani-style national ID card for citizens, more intrusive government and potential nightmares as citizens are denied the right to work because of federal SNAFUs, and potentially, employer avoidance of hiring anyone who even looks foreign). However, if employers only verify the status of aliens, then the system is likely to be ineffective because applicants would simply claim to be citizens to avoid verification (and you still have the problem of employers avoiding any applicants who look foreign).
He pretty clearly believes in separating the issues of illegal and legal immigration (a view which I share).
The Congressional Record turned up some very interesting Kennedy shennanigans that relate to Thompson's votes. Sepcifically, there were three Simpson amendments (including the one you mentioned related to penalties for falsely claiming citizenship) that most republicans, including Thompson and Simpson himself voted down because Teddy Kennedy attached a minimum wage raise bill to them. This is why you can't take ratings at face value without going back to the source and looking into exactly what happened. If you like I would be glad to post the Congressional Record debate about this.
So, Thompson voted in favor of the toughest anti-illegal-immigration bill that came up during his tenure. Below are his votes on every amendment. Because it's easy to distort the record by cherrypicking (something many candidate ranking sites are guilty of), please note that I included every vote.
The bill "amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve deterrence of illegal immigration to the United States by increasing border patrol and investigative personnel, by increasing penalties for alien smuggling and for document fraud, by reforming exclusion and deportation law and procedures, by improving the verification system for eligibility for employment, and through other measures, to reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal entries into the United States, and for other purposes."
Thompson's vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00108
Looking deeper into the amendments that Thompson favored or opposed during the bill's consideration:
-Thompson voted against Chafee's proposal "to provide that the emergency benefits available to illegal immigrants also are made available to legal immigrants." (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00106)
-Thompson voted against Graham's amendment 3759 that would permit state and local governments to ignore federal immigration enforcement law if enforcement compliance cost more than would be saved in benefits (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00105)
-Thompson voted against Graham's amendment 3764 that would have allowed legal immigrants who arrived before enactment of the new law to continue collecting Medicaid (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00104).
-Thompson voted against Simon's amendment 3813 that would have made it easier for legal immigrants who arrived before enactment of the new law to collect welfare (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00103).
-Thompson voted against Simon's amendment 3810 that would have made it easier for legal immigrants who became disabled after arriving in the US to collect welfare (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00102).
-Thompson voted against tabling/killing Abraham's amendment that aimed to prevent a national ID card (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00101)
-Thompson voted against Leahy's amendment 3780 that would have made it harder to deport illegal immigrants who claimed persecution (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00100)
-Thompson voted against Bradley's amendment 3790 that would establish a $100 million office of employer sanctions within the INS (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00099)
-Thompson voted for Feinstein's amendment 3776 that would allow deportation notices to be printed in languages other than English ((http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00098)
-Thompson voted against Simon's amendment 3809 that would have allowed legal immigrants to stay even if they had received some types of public assistance for a year or more (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00097)
-Thompson voted against Kennedy's amendment 3816 that would have limited employers' ability to demand additional documents for employee verification (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00096)
Thompson was absent on 4/29-4/30/96
-Thompson voted with other Republicans (including Simpson) to table Simpson's amendment 3671 (penalties for falsely claiming citizenship) because Kennedy attempted to attach a minimum wage raise to it (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00088)
-Thompson voted with other Republicans (including Simpson) to table Simpson's amendment 3670 (pilot program for nonimmigrant foreign students) because Kennedy attempted to attach a minimum wage raise to it (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00087)
-Thompson voted with other Republicans (including Simpson) to table Simpson's amendment 3669 (prevention of free education for some immigrants) because Kennedy attempted to attach a minimum wage raise to it (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00086)
-Thompson voted to let the immigration bill go forward in a party-line vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00085)
-Thompson voted to table Feinstein amendment 3740 related to chain migration on the grounds that legal immigration should be addressed separately ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00084)
-Thompson voted against Simpson amendment 3739 related to chain migration on the grounds that legal immigration should be addressed separately (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00083)
-Thompson voted to table Dorgan's amendment 3667 that social security should be excluded from any balanced budget amendment (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00083)
-Thompson was one of only 20 senators to vote in favor of repealing the ban on INS agents searching open fields if they have probable cause to believe an illegal act has occured (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00080)
ping to post 270 — Thompson immigration research FYI!
LOL well thank you, I appreciate it, and I love the 70’s station.
Hehe. I’m sure you’ve probably only gotten that about 10,000 times. :-P
However, do you know whether there is a quote where Fred condemns John McCain's Z-visa shamnesty provison, specifically? We all know EVERYONE opposes "amnesty" -- even President Bush says he opposes amnesty -- but some of us are smart enough to know now that Z-visa is another name for amnesty. It confers legal status upon them whether they ever seek citizenship or not.
I haven't heard Fred say he opposes the Z-visa, and given his past relationship with McCain, it makes a lot of people uneasy I think. Perhaps he will address it once he is officially a candidate and all will be well.
___________
Romney said the bill incorporates border security and employment verification measures, which he advocates. Yet, Mitt specifically rejected McCain's Z-visa.
“But there’s something I don’t like in the bill,” Romney said. “There’s something called a Z Visa and the idea behind the Z Visa is everybody who’s here illegally today is given a Z Visa that allows them to stay here for the rest of their lives legally. But that strikes me as being amnesty and unfair.”
Romney said the visa would give special treatment to people who came here illegally over people who have pursued or are waiting to gain citizenship through legal channels.
Greetings, FRiend redgirl!
The actual implementation of employer verification issue does have some potential pitfalls — it might be the answer, but the more I read about it, the more I realize that it could become a dangerous extension of fedgov power if all applicants (including citizens) must be verified. I don’t know that Mitt or any of the governor candidates addressed the employer issue either, did they? We know Giuliani didn’t - heh. :) If the border were secure and government benefits were cut off, we would have a much, much smaller problem on our hands. Employers must be forced to comply with the law — but IMO it’s got to be done very carefully so citizens don’t get caught up in it.
I don’t know whether Thompson specifically cited Z-visas in his staunch opposition to McCain’s shamnesty. He unequivocally came out against the entire plan, though. Thompson actually parted ways with McCain frequently in Congress — I believe their relationship was mostly related to support of the military and opposition to rampant government spending.
I didn't hear Fred say unequivocally that he rejected McCain's bill in its entirety - even the employer verification and border security measures? That doesn't make any sense. Parts of the bill are okay. Maybe he didn't read it all, like Mitt did? Just teasin' ya! ;-)
Anyway, I still want Fred to say he opposes the Z-visa though. I'll be watching and waiting, because that is a huge loophole and the McCain types do not admit that it is an amnesty provision at all. So we need everyone on the record stating that they specifically reject it (or it will come back to haunt us in the end).
Goodnight ellery!
I don’t know if Romney will fold or not.....
But since when is announcing one’s candidacy 4 months before the first caucus, 5 months before the first primary, and FIFTEEN MONTHS before the freaking general election announcing late?
I agree with someone a few posts back who said that Fred may not be entering too late; these other guys may have entered too early.
The way I look at it, only about 10% of the most politically interested (like Freepers) have been paying attention to this point. And as one of that 10% I can state unequivocally that, while I will vote for any of them against Hillary, I am already sick to death of looking at EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE GUYS: Rudy, Romney.....every damned one of them, including even the guy I’ve supported - Tom Tancredo. And I was sick to death of McCain years ago.
That covers 10% of us. The other 90% haven’t been paying attention anyway, so what has he lost as far as they’re concerned? NADA.
I look forward to hearing what Thompson has to say. Not in these stupid debates, which are utterly useless so long as there are 57 people on the stage, but in one-on-ones and on the campaign trail. When the debates get down to 3 or 4 candidates, I’ll give them some credence, too.
Let’s all give the guy a chance. We’ve got the next 6 months or so to take shots at the GOP guys we don’t like if we’re so inclined - though I don’t understand this need some feel to devour our own.
Remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment, everybody.
Hank
-------------
The impression it sends to me is that he's smart enough to opt for the opportunity to say more or less whatever he wants to 5 or 6 million people over the opportunity to share a stage with 10 other candidates and reach maybe one-third that number.
Is that what you were after?
;-)
Hank
Hey, I was kind of getting on board with him. I’d like to hear a Hunter supporter explain this one away. These earmarks drive me nuts and if the conservatives were trying to do away with them, why didn’t Hunter support them?
Thanks for that post. Do you happen to know how Tancredo voted on it?
Hank
Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998
Voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997
-------------
To "ALLOW" firms to lay off Americans? To ALLOW them? Since when in the USA does the government have to ALLOW companies to lay off employees?
And you have a problem with giving political asylum to people fleeing Communist dictatorships?
Before you go there....I am NOT a Fredhead. Not yet anyway. But no conservative I know thinks a company should need the government's permission to layoff employees, even if they want to hire Martians to replace them.
Hank
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.