Posted on 11/02/2007 9:35:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When word began circulating in Republican circles last spring that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was considering a run for the presidency, the reaction ranged from relief the party had finally found a suitable standard - bearer to squeals of delight about the actor/politician and his resemblance to former President Ronald Reagan.
It was arguably the high mark of the campaign thus far.
Thompson seemed to squander the summer as he considered his run and raised fewer campaign dollars than hoped. Once he hit the campaign trail, he was forced to acknowledge ignorance about some local issues when stumping across the country, such as Terri Schiavo and offshore drilling in Florida. Republican voters found him wanting, a reaction epitomized by a moment that can be seen on YouTube when Thompson had to ask his audience for applause.
And yet, in a striking statement about the fluidity of the Republican race, he strode into Las Vegas on Thursday as a top-tier candidate with a real shot at the nomination.
His chief opponents, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are seen as having weaknesses, especially among the party's conservative core. Thompson, who was the Republican staff lawyer for the Watergate Committee and then a prosecutor and a lobbyist, will be especially tough in the South , which is the party's geographic base and which will host an early primary in South Carolina.
The man who plays tough-talking, straight-shooting New York District Attorney Arthur Branch on TV's "Law & Order" spoke to about 100 Republicans at Stoney's Rockin' Country, a country bar on South Las Vegas Boulevard , at a breakfast fundraiser for the state Republican Party. It was an unconventional fundraiser crowd: Some seemed to be bar patrons dropping by for an early nip.
Thompson began with a joke that drew a laugh: "Keep watching those reruns. There's something called residuals," he said of "Law & Order" and its ubiquitous presence on cable TV.
He said Republicans would have to stop the Democrats, "a political party that wants to turn the country into a giant welfare state" and "plays politics with national security."
Thompson, who speaks in a laconic drawl and in a spare style devoid of policy details or soaring rhetoric, described himself as a "common -sense conservative" who believes in low taxes and strong national defense.
Politics isn't so complicated, Thompson said. "It's peace and prosperity, my friends."
It was a short speech, and then he worked the rope line.
State Sen. Bob Beers, who was at the breakfast, said he'll support Thompson. "I like him, I like his politics, and I feel comfortable following him."
Beers said Thompson's campaign hadn't asked for an endorsement or any help with his Nevada organization.
Nevada Republicans will hold their caucus Jan. 19.
The Feds have the right to regulate the sale and manufacture of firearms... and they can do so as long as it does NOT violate the Second Amendment. There are also Federal limitations on Free Speech... it is “regulated” to a degree. CFR is a prime example! You are also pitifully unaware that Federal Law allows for private ownership of some of those very weapons that you try so unsuccessfully to use in your erroneous argument. There are events held for charity where an average Joe can go and shoot these 50 cal Machine Guns... M-60 machine guns... and other military weapons... ALL legally owned by holders of a Class Three Firearms License. I know a guy that owns an old Sherman Tank too. Like I said... you lose and so will mitt!
LLS
LLS
Nailed it... again!!!
LLS
If Campaign Finance is you biggest hit against Fred's conservative bona fides AND you're a Mitt supporter...
Well it speaks volumes...
Let's see:
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney "proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns," while during his 1994 Senate campaign Romney "publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs)." [The Hill, 2/8/07]
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have wanted to tax political contributions?
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have supported spending limits?
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have wanted to git rid of PACs?
No, of course not! That would be silly.
Here is your guy:
Referring to the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform, Romney called it "one of the worst things in my lifetime." [The Hill, 2/8/07]
Now that's solid!
So much so he agrees with Fred Thompson that it was a mistake! Awesome!
I find it interesting that you use that as a "sticking" point with Thompson, as a conservative, and in turn support Mitt Romney, and in doing so state:
"If Fred were a solid Conservative..."
Lets look at solid shall we...
First and foremost Mitt joined the NRA last year
I assume in Romney world, that is a lifetime of supporting gun rights...
Just as recent as 2002 we have an associate of his say he is a pro life Mormon faking a pro choice stance. Even if it was a slip, it was a pretty honest one since Mitt even said he talked pro choice to those out of the state. I have linked on this more than a few times...
Don't get me started on that newspaper clipping Rovian Storm posted of Mitt saying he would be better for gay rights than Teddy boy...
Yes indeed Charles, I find it funny that you support Mitt and try and say he's a "solid" conservative.
I will grant you though, in statements and some deeds you are right, he is a solid, staunch conservative, and there is ample evidence to support that. The thing that disturbs me, and should any honest conservative, is that there is also ample evidence to support the exact opposite!
Either the man can't figure out where he stands, or more disturbing, he knows exactly where to stand in a given situation based on his goals at that time.
Solid? I don't think so...
I'll stick with the man who has the track record, warts and all. The one who admits honest mistakes and takes principled stands even if on the odd occasion they turn out wrong. I'll take the man who gives thorough thought and analysis to all issues, chooses a course and sticks to it despite the prevailing winds. The Man who has been a Republican and Conservative since his youth. The man with the broad knowledge of law and politics. The man with stances on a host of issues instead of a few hot button ones. I'll stick with a truly solid conservative who has been a LIFE member of the NRA for much longer than this election cycle...
Just like many conservatives here on this bastion of conservative discussion, just like its founder, I will stick with Fred Thompson.
Sure, as of today, but wait 'til he flip-flops back to being a gun-grabbing, pro-gay, abortion-loving, tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberal in the oval office. No thanks! NO MITT, NO RUDY, NO HUCKABEE, NO MCCAIN!! NO RINO'S PERIOD!!
......The Thompson steamroller is gaining speed....
Downhill.......
Duh!
Rolling downhill is converting potential energy to kinetic energy by using the natural and free force of gravity. The acceleration of 32 ft per second per second adds cumulatively with increased seconds.
When additional force is added, say TV, the velocity will increase dramatically.
Jonesie—yet another excellent post by you. Awesome. Thanks for the ping.
The Conservative Case For Fred Thompson In 2008
Posted by CharlesWayneCT to W04Man
On News/Activism 10/12/2007 10:08:19 AM EDT · 28 of 103
I’m a little tired of the suggestion that Fred Thompson is the only candidate we have with principles. He’s a good man, but so are others.
Thompson is being “Jammed” by the Huckabee MSM push.
It is all about protecting Giuliani.
Just because some idiot starts with a basic fact to make a fallacious argument doesn’t mean that basic fact can’t be used to make a sound argument.
Why will nobody actually answer the question? I think it’s because they can’t answer the question without revealing their own hypocrisy.
So, I lost the argument. And how did I lose it? By getting you to admit that not only does the government regulate many firearms, and restrict their ownership, but that you agree with me that the government has a RIGHT to pass restrictions on firearms.
The only issue between you and Mitt is in how far each of you would accept restrictions on the ownership of firearms.
Which was my point. So I’ll be happy to accept “losing”, since losing here is defined as you conceding my point.
I don’t oppose Fred. He’s fine with me. My argument is against those who would accept Fred but reject others for not being perfect.
I’m consistant, I’m willing to accept flaws in the candidates. The Mitt-bashers here SAY they will not compromise, and then pick the guy who more than anybody made McCain/Feingold a reality.
That’s not consistant. And I’m tired of being called names by hypocrits. I’ll be happy to vote for Fred, but he’s not my first pick right now because I don’t see him able to win. But I’m tired of the Fred supporters castigating Mitt supporters for their “compromise”, when Fred supporters are compromising as well.
Right. We can’t support McCain, because while he’s solidly pro-life, and very good on fiscal responsibility, and good on Guns, and excellent on the War on Terror, and also SUPPORTS exactly the kind of judges we want, he also voted for McCain-Feingold.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not a good slogan. I’m just tired of his supporters who say other candidates DON’T have principles.
It’s not a sound argument when the logical extension of that argument is that we only have the right to own Revoutionary War era weapons.
I told you where to find the answers to your questions: in the Federalist Papers.
No, the argument was NOT that you could only own revolutionary weapons. The argument was that, at the time when the 2nd amendment was written, that’s what they had. What are the equivalent weapons of today? Are they the modern rifle, or a machine gun, or the 16-inch guns found on warships?
Is a suitcase nuclear weapon an “arms” that the people have a right to keep and bear?
look, my question was a simple one — when the 2nd amendment says “the right to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed”, what “arms” does that cover?
Doesn’t requiring a special permit to own certain firearms “infringe” on the rights to bear those arms? Doesn’t denying weapons to people who have seen a shrink infringe on those rights? Doesn’t largely prohibiting owning machine guns infringe?, or are machine guns not the “arms”.
So my question is simple: Do you accept ANY limitation on ANY “arms” which can be owned by citizens, or can I have a suitcase nuke? And if you DO accept a limitation, what is it about the things you allow that makes it so your “limitations” are not “infringing” on rights?
Because if you allow ANY “arms” to be infringed upon, it means that you don’t think “bear arms” is a limitless right. And if you don’t, then we are just arguing about where the limit is. You might say suitcase nukes, I might say machine guns, someone else might say semi-automatic weapons.
You lost... give it up... move on.
LLS
And my simple response, yet again, is that the answer to this is addressed very clearly in the Federalist Papers.
I accept your concession.
In other words, you have no idea what your answer is, but you are sure that if someone were to read the entire federalist papers and TELL you what they said, that would be your position.
Well, I can tell you the federalist papers are a wealth of good information, but they do not say that Colt 45’s are arms that you have a right to own, and Stinger anti-aircraft missles are not.
Maybe the question is too hard for you, because it requires interpreting rather than simply quoting from something someone else wrote for you.
The constitution clearly allows for some restriction on citizens owning weapons. It is clear you agree with some restrictions, although you are incapable of explaining WHY or where you draw that line.
So your objection to where Romney draws that line is without merit, and therefore meaningless.
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.