Posted on 09/05/2007 10:15:05 AM PDT by MittFan08
As Mr. Thompson prepares to announce tomorrow that he will officially seek the Republican nomination for president and voters begin to take a closer look at him, his maverick streak and his voting record will be front and center.
Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens — he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal — and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Not what I heard. Fred stated that the secure fence act of 2006 was just passed and considered that the place to secure the border. He added, more needed to be done, included internal enforcement. He was on the Levine show a while back when he was talking immigration.
Mitt ran an amnesty state until he decided he wanted to run for President, then he decided to talk tough, but did almost nothing of substance. Not going to be fooled by the two step again.
I don't think it's the same thing. What I do is make two lists, those I can vote for and those I can't. I guess you would say I weight the issues, so some things I can differ with the candidate on (with great disappointment and a commitment to see him lose on that issue) and some things are deal breakers.
Then there is the issue of trust. If I think a candidate is a pathological liar there is no way I will vote for him no matter what. How do I know when he is lying and when he is telling the truth? I don't want to win with a liar.
With Romney the first thing out of his mouth after announcing he was running was the AW ban was good and should be reimposed -— oops, must have forgot he wasn’t the governor of Mass anymore.
Yes, you are right. Fred Thompson did little to solve or create problems while in the Senate. Except enact McCain-Feingold.
As for Romney’s vision on healthcare, he’s the only candidate who I’ve seen even remotely address the issue. And it’s going to have to happen. The rest are sticking their heads in the sand.
Frankly, I like many aspects of Romney’s plan in Mass. Not some add-ons the legislature tacked on (mandates on businesses, for example), but it’s a good start. His plans on deregulating state markets through tax incentives on the federal level sound even better.
I’ll note he’s pretty much the only candidate who even has the ability to touch the healthcare issue.
You’re a Thompson supporter. What do you make of the fact that the man voted against tax-free healthcare savings accounts? Or against the reimportation of drugs from Canada? Though he did vote for President Bush’s prescription drug plan tacked on to Medicare.
Those aren’t exactly market-based approaches there...
ROFLOL
What day of the week and months was this his position. I'm sure it's flipped and flopped since then.
Mitt did nothing of substance?
I guess vetoing laws that would have granted in-state tuition to illegals doesn’t count. I guess fighting against bilingual education and fighting for English-only school instruction doesn’t count. I guess unique programs training state officers to arrest and deport illegals doesn’t count.
Meanwhile, I directly quoted Thompson saying that he didn’t think mortar and stone were necessary to keep illegals away.
Take a look at this own essay. He writes this piece declaring that we should secure the border. Does he ever state how this is to be done?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjEzYTc5YjA2ZGNiZjlmZDJkMTllYmE4MjE3ZmY1OTY=
Now, if you’re going to talk about substance, show me the slightest bit of it in here. Show me anything but vague criticism. Any workable idea. Just one.
>>>What day of the week and months was this his position. I’m sure it’s flipped and flopped since then<<<
You do tend to swing before looking. Good point.
IOW, one is to ignore the record of a candidate in favor of that candidate's views today? Will you be so kind to Rudy Guliani or Hillary Clinton in that same regard?
I am directly opposed to this line of thinking. It is almost inherent in all candidates that they will shape themselves... they will promise whatever is necessary to get the job.
I submit that a longstanding record will say more about a candidate than any epiphanies realized in the last two years. Their record is the most important part of a candidate. If you can live with their record, if their record is good evidence of their true leanings, then by all means support them.
It is truly troubling to me that so many people on this conservative forum are so greatly effected by campaign promises. That is how RINOS get into office in the first place. This isn't about popularity, but about principle. If conservative principles are so easily ignored here (of all places), then we as a country are surely far upon the road to doom.
I’d feel a lot better about this if he’d come out with a no BS, no read between the lines statement on this including exactly what, if anything, he plans to do about the illegals situation and the work done so far towards the NAU.FDT plans to answer questions online, beginning tomorrow. If you're serious about wanting to know his stance on the issues that concern you, I urge you to submit your questions to him directly.
As a former Mormon, I could never vote for a Mormon who doesn’t (or didn’t) oppose abortion.
Hypocrisy barely begins to describe it.
Or am I mischaracterizing the governor’s position(s) ?
The Fredheads ignore who his little dangerous friends are:
Can you say Howard Baker, his mentor and still best of friends?
Howard Baker, for one, who voted to give away our Panama Canal?
Some of George’s little friends who are jumping ship to Fredhead?
And this is just a little, tiny scratch on the surface.
This man is dangerous.
RedState, RightWingnews.com and Instapundit are accepting questions to submit to Thompson. They will choose among 4-5 submitted to be given to Fred thompson for response. There are a few other sites doing the same, but these are the first three I recall immediately. Oh, I think captain’s Quarters is among among the sites selected to official tender questions to the Thompson campaign.
If you want a question answered, rather then listening to others with their own agendas, now is the time. make it a good question and may be directly answered by Fred. I suspect no matter what at least one or two questions on illegal immigration are going to make his list for answers.
This isn't directed at you, but what ever happened to WE the PEOPLE getting the best candidate elected? If the media and a few party hacks are going to pick the candidate, why are we even bothering to pay any attention at all? Might as well just party 'til the country is totally gone.
Bump. Well spoken.
One thing that is becoming more clear to me with each passing day about Fred Thompson is that if one likes George Bush's immigration policies then they will love Fred Thompson's as well as it is basically a continuation of Bush's. I see a pattern developing once again, defend the candidate even though the candidate himself is not defending his own position on the issue of immigration and uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration. Fred is a CFR globalist as much as Bush is, IMHO.
I pretty much figured it out when the open borders crowd rushed to support him.
The charlatan doormat, I simple don’t trust a liar. Too much history. All she wants is full blown communism.
Candidates change over time, but Fred has stuck to his guns. In my many years, gun rights is the best litmus test out there. If the rulers won’t trust responsible gun owners with guns, what will they trust you with. This is a fundamental metric of trusting the public with individual responsibility and the responsible exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. For me, this trumps all other positions -- period. Neither Rudy nor Mitt has come around on the liberal stand on gun control, says more about them than anything else, where their center is. Gun control == Liberal.
Romney care is socialist medicine lite, and Rudy care is well he isn't sure.
Fred is a standard bearer who can carry the flag of Conservatives proudly. The others are just pretend.
As to Mitt, I just don’t trust a gun banner saying he is conservative. Maybe if the first thing Mitt said wasn’t “sure the 1994 AW ban should be reinstated” it might be different. Gun rights goes to the heart of the individual rights argument, the bedrock of Conservatives. Can't put it back in the bottle, too late now. Mitt’s a no vote for me.
Fred’s the real deal, a Conservative who can carry the banner proudly, and articulate the Conservative message to the public at large.
Not necessarily. Much of the business of the Federal Govt. has been creeping into the States over the last 40 years, and this is one of the things that Fred is going to try to change. The Federal Govt should NOT be involved in how states run their own affairs, unless is it something that is directly related to the Govt. according to the Constitution.
It could very well be that the vote mentioned in this story was that kind of issue. Taking a vote out of context can give it an entirely new and wrong meaning.
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.