[mkjessup]

Those are wise words Jim.

And although it appears that a huge majority of Freepers are rallying around Fred Thompson, I am unconvinced of Thompson's conservatism, and no less than Richard Viguerie and Jerome Corsi have come out and stated that Thompson is just one more faux-conservative, dare I say it Jim?

Thompson is a RINO.

Viguerie compiled a list of votes of Thompson while in the U.S. Senate, based on material from the American Conservative Union, and what I see does not augur well for a Thompson candidacy, nomination or run for the White House:

* FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. 1998

* FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) 2000

* AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. 1999

* AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” 2001

* FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. 1995

* FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. 1996

* AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. 1997

* FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. 1995

* FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. 1995 and 1999

* FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. 1996.

* FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. 1998

* FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. 2000

* FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). 1999

* AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. 2001

* AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. 1997

* FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. 1997

* FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for everyone. 2002

* FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. 2002. (McCain-Feingold)

In my view, the only true conservative who is right on the issues, pro-family, pro-life, is focused on national security and the need to secure our borders, is Congressman Duncan Hunter. And I readily admit that in polling data, Hunter has had, and has before him a tough row to hoe, but I believe that if a flake like Howard Dean can break out in 2004 and come close to building the momentum necessary to win a political nomination, (based on polls and based on his internet organizational efforts), then certainly someone with character, intelligence and experience like Hunter can go MUCH farther.

And it isn't inaccurate to point out that after Thompson served a third of one term, (2 years after a special election in '94) and then one whole 6 year term as Senator, he chose to quit.

Duncan Hunter has never quit and his 26+ years of leadership and support for our military testifies to that.

I'm calling it a night, hope all is well with you Jim.

MKJ

[Prokopton]

And it isn't inaccurate to point out that after Thompson served a third of one term, (2 years after a special election in '94) and then one whole 6 year term as Senator, he chose to quit.

Duncan Hunter has never quit and his 26+ years of leadership and support for our military testifies to that.

Not only have you drank deeply from the anti-Thompson Kool-Aid, usually served by jealous supporters of marginalized candidates, but you have a liberals view of our congress.

Fred Thompson did what the Founders of this Country wanted it's legislators to do, serve for a limited time and then go back to being a private citizen. Thompson not only did this but said he was going to before he was elected. Some other people, Hunter included, see being a representative of the people as a profession, not as temporary public service. This is one of the biggest problems we have in this Country, ensconced professional politicians who think they are more important than the Country.

Hunter has some positive conservative attributes, but having spent most of his life as a politician is not one of them.

[ari-freedom]

In my view, the only true conservative who is right on the issues, pro-family, pro-life, is focused on national security and the need to secure our borders, is Congressman Duncan Hunter.
-
yes but Hunter is not much of a conservative when it comes to free markets. He’s not a socialist of course but he’s more of a mercantilist, an idea that Adam Smith worked hard to refute.

We want conservatives in all 3 areas of fiscal, social and security (that’s why I push that with my tag line)

There’s actually a 4th area of conservatism that’s not usually discussed and that is of pragmatism. This means a conservative would much rather vote for someone who had real life experience implementing his ideas (such as a businessman or governor) instead of someone with intriguing ideas but was shielded from the real world, like most lawyers, senators and academics.

[Politicalmom]

Here you go.

Something to feed your obsession.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

no less than Richard Viguerie

First time I worked with Dick Vigurie was 45 years ago, at the 1st national YAF office in NYC. I don't think that someone who opposed nominating Reagan is a perfect conservative political analyst! (Same thing was true of Senators Goldwater, Tower, and Thurmond).

[Bull Market]

You won’t remember any of those when you’re pulling the lever for Thompson instead of Clinton.

On the other hand, pulling the lever on Giuliani means knowing he’s pro-death, on Romney it means pro-feds, on McCain it means pro-illegals.

I won’t be holding my nose when I vote for Fred in the primary and the general. I’ll be absolutely giddy at having a President who genuinely wants to dump the current tax system and prevent the courts from legislating social atrocities in abortion and gay fake-marriage.

Does Hunter even truly care about anything but China and pandering to manufacturing unions?

[ravingnutter]

And it isn't inaccurate to point out that after Thompson served a third of one term, (2 years after a special election in '94) and then one whole 6 year term as Senator, he chose to quit.

It is inaccurate, he didn't just quit. He quit politics after his 38-year-old daughter, Elizabeth Panici died of a prescription drug overdose:

Elizabeth Thompson Panici, who suffered from bipolar disorder, died in January 2002. Her death was a major factor in Thompson's decision two months later not to seek a second full term in the Senate, friends and colleagues said at the time.

USA Today

[ellery]

It takes a lot of time, but I would advise you to go to Thomas.gov and actually examine a candidate’s entire voting record, rather than rely on lists compiled by third parties. I’ve done that for both Thompson and Hunter (for Hunter, only back to the 90s because Thomas.gov doesn’t go back any further at this point).

I can tell you that in some of the areas you’ve mentioned (specifically, non-defense-spending and the minimum wage, Thompson’s record far outshines Hunter’s). Thompson also repeatedly voted against allowing union leaders to make political donations without their members’ consent. He was also one of the senate leaders in fighting against both public welfare entitlements and corporate welfare. That’s just off the top of my head.

What it comes down to is that any candidate with many years of votes on record can be cherry-picked and thus, distorted. As a very glaring example, I could compile a list on Duncan Hunter and portray him as anti-Iraq War — simply by including his amendment to pull the troops out and omitting the fact that he did that as a political gambit (and omitting a huge list of his war-support activities). That would be ridiculous, of course. But it’s no more ridiculous than claiming that Thompson is pro-spending and -welfare (corporate or otherwise) — as I said, he was one of the leaders in fighting spending, entitlements and corporate welfare.

I’m not expecting you to take my word for it — if you’re truly interested, go directly to the source and check it out for yourself.