Posted on 09/21/2007 11:33:22 AM PDT by pissant
Um...he wasn’t President?
If Fredhead ad hominem attacks on the the writer and poster of an article count as discussion, then you are right, it has been discussed.
Further discussion at Race42008
Renowned Pro-life attorney James Bopp Jr. takes issue with Fred’s relationhip to CFR. He a very revealing post, we see some grave problems in Fred and his lack of candor on CFR...
Thompson needs to come out and be honest about his intentions here. We have a guy who claims not to remember that he was pro-choice despite debate proclamations in 1994, and a guy who tip toes around his founding role in CFR. Let’s hear him take ownership of the pet project that was his. I mean, a guy who pushes for a law that the Roberts Court finds unconstitutional and infringing on freedom of speech needs to be honest and up front with the American people. If he is, then perhaps forgiveness could be in order.
We did discuss that here on FR, several months ago. Perhaps you were too busy on a Mitt/Hunter/Paul thread to know.
None, and we certainly COULD considering this bribery scandal he’s been named in.
(I don’t think Hunter did anything BTW...)
Ya’ think?
Fred wasn't a candidate several months ago, so hardly a need to discuss it then. He hadn't had his meandering interview with Laura Ingraham several months ago, and this piece that clarifies matters was published today.
"Old news..." wasn't that the Clinton mantra?
“None, and we certainly COULD....”
but we WOULD’NT because if Hunter had a chance at all, or numbers compararble to Freds right now, most of “us” would be supporting Hunter. I know I would. Unfortunately for Duncan it comes down to keeping Trudy from the nomination.
I plan to vote for the man most likely to be able to do that. His name is not Duncan Hunter.
Romney: Ban PACs, Tax Campaign Contributions
A history of support for Campaign Finance Reform
McLean, VA - Until he started running for President, Mitt Romney had a long history of supporting campaign finance reform and restrictions even more stringent than McCain-Feingold legislation.
FACT: Romney SUPPORTED banning Political Action Committees
Romney SUPPORTED a ten percent tax on campaign contributions
Romney SUPPORTED capping campaign spending on congressional elections
Supported Banning PACs
“These kinds of associations between money and politics in my view are wrong. And for that reason, I would like to have campaign spending limits...I also would abolish PACS...I don’t like the influence of money, whether it’s business, labor or any other group, I do not like that kind of influence.” (Mitt Romney for Senate Press Conference Video 1994, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to)
Supported Taxing Campaign Contributions
“Massachusetts Romney called for spending limits on candidates and a 10 percent tax on campaign contributions for state elections to finance publicly funded campaigns.”(Editorial, “Campaign Finance Flip,” Washington Post, 5/26/07).
Supported Capping Spending on Congressional Elections
“Romney also said he advocates spending limits on congressional elections, even suggesting that the current race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy should have a $6 million spending cap...”
(Frank Phillips, “Romney, Vowing To Live It, Touts Congress Reform Plan,” The Boston Globe, 7/7/94)
When McCain Campaigned For Romney In 2002, Romney Praised McCain For Standing For “Reform And Change” Saying “Those Are My Values.”
“Romney also praised McCain for his general reform campaign when the Arizona senator came to Massachusetts to stump with Romney just before Romney’s 2002 election victory in the governor’s race. ‘He has always stood for reform and change. And he’s always fought the good battle, no matter what the odds,’ Romney said at the time. ‘Those are my values.’” (Eric Moskowitz, “Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance,” Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
In fact, Romney’s proposals were even more stringent than what was included in McCain’s legislation.
“Back then [since his days as a Senate and gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts], Romney advocated more stringent measures than McCain-Feingold ultimately included, such as a spending limit for federal elections and a tax on political contributions.” (Eric Moskowitz, “Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance,” Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
His buds? Or wounded veterans? True, I guess they are his buds.
Sorry, the Vets only get 1/3 of the deal, and then they only have space for 25 at a time.
The rest goes to rich donators to golf, practice touch and go’s,and have fun.
VERY nice.
And just what has Fred Thompson ever done for any Veteran?
Seems Fred has a little competition in his “zeal” for CFR....
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=8280
But I know, just minor details....
Did rather help you with that?
LLS
http://web.archive.org/web/20021031004411/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/releases/pr040201.html
April 2, 2001
THOMPSON LAUDS PASSAGE OF McCAIN-FEINGOLD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) today lauded Senate passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, which passed the Senate by a 59-41 vote.
The bill bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides greater disclosure and stronger election laws.
“This is a good day for the United States Senate. It demonstrates once again that this body can respond to a demonstrated public need,” said Thompson, an original co-sponsor of the McCain- Feingold bill and a supporter of the legislation since 1995.
“The McCain-Feingold bill will restore a campaign finance system that has become more loophole than law,” Senator Thompson added. “We will once again ensure that unlimited corporate, union, and individual funds will not compromise the integrity of the political process.”
During debate on the bill last week, the Senate approved two amendments sponsored by Senator Thompson. A Thompson-Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) amendment increased the individual hard money limits on contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. It also increased several other hard money limits and indexed their future growth to inflation.
“But for the willingness of Senator Thompson and Senator Feinstein to find common ground on the issue of increasing (hard) money limits, I fear our efforts would have proved as futile as they have in the past,” Senator McCain said on the Senate floor prior to the vote on final passage.
The Senate also approved a Thompson-Joe Lieberman (D-CT) amendment which will strengthen the enforcement of our federal election laws by increasing penalties for campaign finance violations. “The blatant and widespread abuses in the 1996 campaign fundraising scandal clearly necessitate better enforcement if we are to avoid a repeat of those violations in future campaigns,” Thompson said.
The McCain-Feingold bill will now be considered by the House of Representatives.
###
http://web.archive.org/web/20021027034622/thompson.senate.gov/press/2002/releases/pr032702.html
March 27, 2002
Thompson Lauds Signing of Historic Campaign Finance Reform Bill
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) today lauded final approval of historic campaign finance reform legislation as President Bush signed the bill into law.
Thompson said, “I want to applaud President Bush for showing both foresight and courage in signing a bill that will help to restore confidence in our electoral system and reduce cynicism among the American people. This is a major step toward changing the way we do business here in Washington.”
The bill bans unlimited, unregulated soft money contributions and increases the limited, regulated, fully disclosed hard money contribution limits to help challengers and to combat the increasing presence of special interest groups in political campaigns. Thompson was the first Republican Senator other than John McCain to support the bill in 1995 and has been working for its passage ever since.
###
I’m for Fred and I like Hunter and would never say anything derogatory about him... I think most Fred supporters support Duncan also.
LLS
Now we will dog his supporters with the disingenuous attacks on FDT.
“Now we will dog his supporters with the disingenuous attacks on FDT.”
I’m with you there.
Fred is a good guy and I'll gladly vote for him if he gets the nomination.
Having said that, the politicians all claim they want to get the big money out of politics, why don't they do what they do best, tax all political contributions over $200 at 95 ~ 99 percent?
That would get the big money out of politics and raise money for the insatiable government at the same time.
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.