Romney jokes about Thompson delays

Yahoo News ^ | 9/3/07 | PHILIP ELLIOTT

[asparagus]

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Monday said he would welcome Republican rival Fred Thompson to the race, but also took some jabs at Thompson's long delay in formally announcing his candidacy.

Thompson, the "Law & Order" television actor and former senator from Tennessee, is expected to officially enter the race this week. Instead of attending a Wednesday night debate in Durham, N.H., Thompson will be in Los Angeles to appear on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

"I think it will boost the ratings for Jay Leno's show, but I'd rather be doing well in New Hampshire," said Romney, who is leading in most polls in this early voting state.

Thompson's candidacy has been a shadow on the GOP contest. He has equivocated about getting into the race, while his campaign organization has been in flux. His entry comes remarkably late in a campaign cycle that began days after the 2006 midterm elections.

"Well, I guess the only comment I'd make to Fred Thompson would be: Why the hurry? Why not take a little longer to think this over?" Romney jokingly told reporters. "From my standpoint, if he wants to wait until January or February, that would be ideal."

That's when the primaries unfold in rapid succession.

Romney spent Monday opening his fall campaign, marching in a Labor Day parade in Milford and attending retails stops elsewhere. He said voters would note who is there — and who is not.

"I think people will notice there have been a bunch of guys who have been working real hard to get to know voters across the country," Romney said.

As for Thompson's entry, Romney quipped: "I think he'll have some fun. We're going to presumably have some debates with him. We'll have had five without him."

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

11th Commandment PING!

Hank

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Look, I’m not really a Romney fan at this point, but this whole “I’ll sit out if the perfect candidate isn’t nominated” thing is getting really old.

Here’s a news flash for everybody: It’s ALWAYS the lesser of two evils! Unless there has ever been a candidate who has agreed with you on every single issue, that’s a simple fact.

It will be the lesser of two evils for me unless I am nominated. And if nominated I will not run.

Some people need to really grow up when it comes to real-world politics. This isn’t directed at you necessarily, your post was just the one in this vein that set me off.

THERE IS NO PERFECT CANDIDATE. LET’S ALL GROW UP!

Hak

[Saundra Duffy]

“Meaningless twaddle for sheeple.”

I sure am proud to support Mitt Romney. He hasn’t done or said anything that I’m ashamed of.

[hiredhand]

#188 is a calmer version, and I appreciate your advice but you've already said (in a previous posting) that you too will be willing to go with the lesser of two evils simply to keep Hillary out, right?

I'm merely stating that there are too many people who don't share your attitude who will vote principles and conscience over the leftists, liars, and panderers that the GOP has endorsed at this point and we'll end up with Hillary Clinton as a President.

Just be honest and don't say that this wasn't directed at me necessarily. I've pissed off far too many people with that same message over the past two weeks to care about it any more. People such as yourself tell me things similar to what you've said, but they all have one thing in common (you included)....they care enough to write me.

I know why. It's because down inside, there's a fear about what I say. ...about this unknown quantity of people who have abandoned the GOP and will NOT vote for RINOs for any reason!...EVER AGAIN. Call us what you will...give us your news flash, point out the fact that we're idealists...tell us to "grow up". You don't change us, because we're fearless. We don't fear cowards who will once again sell our nation out by voting in RINOs, nor do we fear the consequences of their actions.

Here's a "news flash" for you Hank ole buddy. The GOP is going to get SCREWED in 2008 like they did in the last Congressional elections because of people like us.

I'm just trying to get people to "warm up" to it. Since I just don't think they have the fortitude to do anything about it, I figure the least I can do is get them used to the idea.

[thepresidentsbestfriend]

I am worried that Fox News and the MSM may attempt to sink FRED!

[Reaganesque]

Thanks for the post. I agree, there is plenty of hostility to go around and honestly, I can’t figure out why. It accomplishes nothing positive and at the end of this process, we still have the general election to worry about so, what’s the point? People take themselves and their candidates way to seriously these days. I, for one, would gladly vote for Fred if Mitt does not win so, what’s gained by dissing him? Let’s all lighten up a bit, shall we people?

[Swordfished]

Hey, where are you fellas ? And how the hell did I get sucked into another m*****f****** Precious Willard thread ?

Pathetic.

Why don't you learn to speak like a man and not a teenage gangster?

Is this your Anti-Romney ping list?...because it sure isn't a Pro-Fred list. EV is anti-Fred because he says Fred wants to sanction the states to 'murder babies', correct EV?

[hoosierpearl]

Thank you ellery for sharing your research. I hope it helps with the false charges against Fred.

[MeanWestTexan]

What is missing in all this research is Romney’s impassioned stance FOR abortion and FOR gay boy scoutmasters taking little boys camping:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Romney should be running for the Green party or something.

[G8 Diplomat]

Fred has quotes and videos suggesting he is anti-amnesty but also hinting he’s for it.

“You’re going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship...”

He seems to indicate he’s for amnesty here, whereas in the videos you posted he’s all for securing the borders.

It’s apparent he’s taken two sides on this issue.

[G8 Diplomat]

Well both candidates (Fred and Hunter) have their plusses and minuses, and I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about who is better.

If Fred got the nomination I’d vote for him in the general election. We’re basically arguing over subtle differences in these conservatives, but either one would be head and shoulders above the alternative (Democrats).

[hoosierpearl]

I suspect that it is about words and their definitions, the reason you see things differently than Reagan Man [and me]. He said when asked to explain what that quote meant [aspirations of citizenship] by Chris Wallace of Fox News, that he meant absolutely no amnesty. He means something different than what you think. I don’t consider that a change of mind. Ellery’s research shows a consistent pattern of wanting to enforce the laws regarding illegals.

When I think of amnesty, I think of giving them something that they do not deserve and haven’t jumped through the hoops to receive. He does not mean that.

All I can see in all that he said [including the aspirations of citizenship quote] is that he is advocating legal immigration and is against illegal immigration. At least one vote that I can think of [if the rating service was accurate] was for legal immigration and it was counted as for illegal immigration.

Think about it at least.

[G8 Diplomat]

Here'a a summary of Fred voting to "allow" companies to lay off workers (from Numbers USA).

Before the Senate passed the H-1B doubling bill (S.1723), Sen. Thompson had an opportunity to vote for a measure requiring U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Sen. Thompson voted against that, joining those who said the requirement would give government too much authority over corporations’ right to hire whomever they please from whatever country.

And you have a problem with giving political asylum to people fleeing Communist dictatorships?

No but they should have to become citizens like everybody else. Russians who came here from the Soviet Union had to become citizens, why should it be any different for Cubans? They shouldn't just get a freebee and be let in automatically.

[Reagan Man]

I don't see it. There are really only two sides to the immigration issue. You're either for comprehensive immigration reform as advanced by Senate bill S.2611, McCain-Kennedy, or you support the enforcement first reform as advanced by House bill HR.4437. Fred Thompson is definitely on the side of enforcement first. If he wasn't, I wouldn't be supporting him.

The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible? - by Fred Thompson, May. 18, 2007

"Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem – secure our nation’s borders.

But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.

I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a fifteen-minute lunch break.

We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.

Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do -- secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens -- securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier -- at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty."

LINK

[G8 Diplomat]

All I can see in all that he said [including the aspirations of citizenship quote] is that he is advocating legal immigration and is against illegal immigration.

I think stating that getting 12 million people out of the country is not going to happen and thus figuring out some way of citizenship is a clear indication of amnesty.

And here are some other instances of Fred voting wrong on immigration:

**Voted against the Simpson Amendment No. 3671 to the 1996 Immigration Bill. The amendment stated “Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States is deportable.” – Congressional Record, April 1996.

**In 1996, removed higher fines for businesses which hire illegal aliens Sen. Thompson, in committee consideration of 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. Thompson voted with a 10-8 majority in the Judiciary Committee to remove the higher fines from the 1996 legislation against illegal immigration. – Numbers USA

Also see post 76

Of course, he has voted the right way also, as ellery shows, but it's not consistant.

[G8 Diplomat]

I’m aware Fred has taken an anti-immigration stance, but upon reading quotes and watching your videos, I see two sides on his part, you don’t, and typing the morning away isn’t really going to change much. So I’m willing to agree to disagree.

Fred and Hunter are both conservatives, we’re discussing small differences between them. And if Fred got the nomination (better him than Romney, Rudy, or the others) I’d vote for him in the general election. He’s certainly loads better than any Democrat running.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>I think stating that getting 12 million people out of the country is not going to happen and thus figuring out some way of citizenship is a clear indication of amnesty.

There are quotes by Fred which support his stance on immigration reform and there are other quotes when taken out of context can be said to reach different conclusions. There is not going to be any mass deportation of illegals, similar to Operation Wetback of the 1950`s. Secure the borders and enforce employer sanctions. That will force illegals to leave on their own volition.

Dealing with illegal aliens who are already here ~~~ Fred Thompson

“I’ve pointed out that I don’t think that we have to have a choice between amnesty on the one hand, and trying to arrest everybody and put them on buses. Practically, that’s not going to happen. But you don’t have to choose between those if you can have attrition through enforcement, if we enforce the law with regard to employers - and we have an eligibility verification system out there that’s voluntary; it should be mandatory.”

[Reagan Man]

Like I told you. I see the immigration issue as having only two sides. One side that favors comprehensive liberal immigration reform and one side that favors the enforcement first approach of secured borders and employer sanctions. Obviously Fred takes the latter position. You think Fred is hedging his stance on amnesty. I see no evidence of that today. Fred has said no to amnesty again and again.

[ellery]

Well both candidates (Fred and Hunter) have their plusses and minuses, and I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about who is better. If Fred got the nomination I’d vote for him in the general election. We’re basically arguing over subtle differences in these conservatives, but either one would be head and shoulders above the alternative (Democrats).

I agree 100%. If Hunter won the nomination, I'd vote for him too (unlike Giuliani, for whom I would never vote). Best FReegards to you.

[nowandlater]

I am tired of the gotchya politics being played. I used to think that only Dems loved this stuff, no I am not so sure about the other side.