For The Record...A Series Of Fred Facts
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Context:
I voted twice for Bush 43. I did so, in large part, because he was moderately isolationist and had the promise of sufficiently greater Conservative Leadership principle and methodology than his opponent(s). And, I did so BECAUSE of his opponent(s).
Enter, post-inauguration, a rapidly collapsing dot com industry, and a budding recession. He talked of tax cuts, spending constraint, and Government growth caps. He had me at “hello.”
September 11, 2001 forever changed the man George W. Bush, along with the rest of the country and the world. I support the man still, as my President and as my commander in Chief, because I am an American first, and a Patriot always. While I may continue to wander further away from him on nearly EVERY domestic policy initiative, and fully expect to have little left to say in a positive tone about him when he leaves office regarding these things, I respect him for what he has tried to do for this country, and what he has been forced to endure in doing so. But he is leaving soon, and there is much to be done – both for the country, and for the Conservative movement that has been dramatically stalled in the last half of this Administration’s stay on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Whomever the Republicans stand up against the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential elections, Conservatism will be staring at one of the greatest challenges to confront it in, perhaps, a generation. Wisdom, restraint, and forward thinking BEYOND the next election cycle should be our greater modus operandi.
In considering the "why" behind choosing a candidate, and giving my all to helping see him get elected, the very least I can do is make sure I know what he stands for and where he might lead the country going forward. While each candidate may have SOME of the qualities I would seek in a President, we each ultimately decide which devils we can accept and which go beyond that with which we can dance. While I have drifted from it on occasion, I DID promise to focus on the positives of MY choice rather than taking potshots at anyone ELSE’S guy and I return to that now.
Having committed to the Thompson campaign, I begin a series looking into his voting records, and comments regarding same, during the period in which he served as Tennessee's US Senator.
More below the fold...
In the second session of the 107th Congress, the Senate cast 253 roll call votes. Fred Thompson's vote record tallies, as reported by the Washington Post, breaks down this way:
Not Voting: 18
Yes Votes: 165
No Votes: 70
Of the 235 votes he DID cast, he voted AGAINST Republicans 18 times. Of note in his departure from the caucus in these votes is the 11 of 18 times he voted against the Democrats as well. So of COURSE I had to dig deeper and try to understand better why he would vote against things BOTH caucuses favored. So we review...
Vote 9: H R 622: Allen Amdt. No. 2702; To exclude from gross income certain terrorist attack zone compensation of civilian uniformed personnel.
Vote 10: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Baucus Amdt. No. 2718, as modified; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a special depreciation allowance for certain property acquired after December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2004, and to increase the Federal medical assistance percentage under the medicaid program for calendar years 2002 and 2003.
Vote 67: S 517: Motion to Table Feinstein Amdt. No. 3114; To reduce the period of time in which the Administrator may act on a petition by 1 or more States to waive the renewable fuel content requirement.
Vote 78: S 517: Motion to Table Schumer Amendment No. 3030; To strike the section establishing a renewable fuel content requirement for motor vehicle fuel.
Vote 88: S 517: Motion to Table Feinstein Amdt. No. 3225; To modify the provision relating to the renewable content of motor vehicle fuel to eliminate the required volume of renewable fuel for calendar year 2004.
Vote 136: H R 4775: Motion to Table McCain Amdt. No. 3703; To strike the amount provided for design of a storage facility for the Smithsonian Institution.
Vote 138: H R 4775: Motion to Table McCain Amdt. No. 3704; To strike the appropriation for Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities.
Vote 145: H R 4775: H.R. 4775, as amended; 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States
Vote 190: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Rockefeller Amdt. No. 4316; To provide temporary State fiscal relief.
Vote 201: S 812: S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002
Vote 212: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Daschle Amdt No. 4481; To provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers.
Now at a glance, in looking for trends, the first thing that strikes me is he only parted ways with both sides of the Senate on two bills. Everything else listed are motions to table, motions to waive, and on ONE amendment. Forgive my focusng on the bills over the boring procedural stuff.
First, in reverse order, Senate bill 812, "Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002." This bill was introduced by Schumer of New York, and co-sponsored by 12 Senators: Sen. Jean Carnahan (D), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D), Sen. Tom Daschle (D), Sen/ Dick Durbin (D), Sen. John Edwards (D), Sen. Russ Feingold (D), Sen. Tim Johnson (D), Sen. Herb Kohl (D), Sen. John McCain (R), Sen. Zell Miller (D), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D). I won't even ASK why of all the lone Republicans that could have signed on to this bill that McCain would be the one.
To the bill itself. The Roll Call vote shows passage of the bill with a 78 yea to 21 nay and 1 not voting. Among the list of nays, the lone Democrat was Breaux from LA. In digging a little deeper, it appears that during the floor debate Thompson was having a problem with the malpractice elements of the bill. He is concerned about the McConnel amendment, S.AMDT.4326. In fact, as he states here and here:
Mr. President, let me address what I consider to be the real issue, really the only issue, as far as I am concerned. It is not who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. I have seen excesses on both sides of this issue. It is not a matter of what is best for the trial lawyers or best for the insurance companies or even what is best for the patients. It is a question of whether we have a limited form of government, whether we have a Federal Government with enumerated powers. That is the underlying issue. It is amazing to me that we can have a debate on something such as this without it even being brought up.
What we have is an amendment which will take things that have been under the purview of the State governments for 200 years and federalize them. This is getting to be such a common occurrence that nobody pays much attention to it anymore. I pay attention to it. I think it is a bad trend. I think it goes against the system of government that our Founding Fathers set up and has worked in our favor for 200 years.
Interestingly, Sen. Reid interrupted Sen. Thompson, asking this question:
Is the Senator aware that the State of Nevada is in a special session to work out malpractice problems, and does the Senator believe that is the way we should go?
To which OUR guy said this:
The answer to that question is yes. I am amazed to hear that we have a problem in a particular State and that the solution is for the citizens of the small town in that State maybe to drive past the courthouse and drive through the capital, past the statehouse, and get on an airplane and fly to Washington, DC, to talk about a Federal solution against their own State.
Tennessee just had a discussion about a State income tax and a State sales tax. One of the points made against a higher State sales tax was that the State of Kentucky and the State of Mississippi and the State of Arkansas, all these other surrounding States, had a lower sales tax and people would go to those States to buy their goods, just as apparently people are going from one State to another to take advantage of a better medical malpractice case.
The answer to that is, that is the way it is supposed to work. That is our system of government. That is the reason we have States, to have competition among States. If we extend the commerce clause to this, after having been told by the Supreme Court in the Lopez case that the commerce clause does not extend to guns in the local school, after having been told in the Morrison case by the Supreme Court that the commerce clause does not extend to a sex-based crime at a local level--if we extend the commerce clause to the delivery of a baby in Lawrenceburg, TN, there is nothing to which we cannot extend the commerce clause. I regret to say, it is some of us who talk about limited government and enumerated powers who are doing this. I do not think it is sound policy.
It does not matter whether or not there are excesses on one side or another. States are supposed to address these matters. I would not come here and say the State of Tennessee is inadequate in this regard unless I was willing to go back to the State of Tennessee and fight for a change in the laws.
Senator Kennedy and I, are we supposed to write the laws for the State of Tennessee with regard to something that has been under their purview for 200 years? I don't think so.
We can disagree on what those laws should be, but we cannot disagree, surely, on the principle that underlies this debate. The proposed amendment goes so far as to require that each State require 50 percent of all punitive damage awards be used for licensing, investigating, disciplining, and certifying health care professionals and the reduction of malpractice costs for the health care professional volunteers.
This requirement would get us into the management of the licensing and regulation of health care professionals in every State in this country. This is just one step away from national standards and national regulation, not just in the health care area but potentially in any other area.
Regardless of whether you think medical malpractice premiums are too high or lawyers are terrible people, or whatever, if we walk away at this time from this principle, when we want to assert this principle, we are not going to have any principles to stand on because we will have ignored them so often for the particular causes we want at the moment that they will be totally eroded. I submit to the Chamber that is too high a price to pay.
I yield back whatever time remains.
Current Senate Minority leader, in following up, had this to say about Thompson:
Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Tennessee. I commend him for being very consistent in his concern about federalism and States rights. He has raised that issue not just on the occasion of today's amendment but across the board. He has certainly been consistent. I do find it somewhat amusing to hear it invoked from time to time by those on the other side of the aisle for whom States rights are rarely a concern.
Let me say to my good friend from Tennessee, he raises exactly the point I wanted to address in my remaining time this morning. This is a national crisis, a national crisis in the delivery of medical services. This is a national problem, and it demands a national solution. States all across the country--in the West, the South, the Midwest, and the East--are in crisis. Many more States are experiencing serious problems, including my own State of Kentucky. Because it is a national problem, it demands a national solution. Furthermore, it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved in fixing this problem.
It is clear from this exchange that McConnell and Thompson disagree on the level of involvement the Federal Government should have in this issue, but what should be gleaned, generically, from this bill is that Thompson voted NO because he stood up for Federalist principles, and States' rights, and the need for the Government to stay out of issues better addressed at the State level. My brand of Conservatism, indeed.
Couple this with statements he made recently regarding Federalism and malpractice issues, and I believe I see a consistent trend on the matter of where Fred sees the role of the States vs. the role of the Federal Government. McConnell said as much in '02, and I see no reason to doubt Fred on this aspect of Conservative ideology.
Next up, House bill HR 4775, "2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States." The bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Bill Young (R) from Florida's 10th district, with no co-sponsors. Supplemental appropriations bills, as we know from modern-day legislation, always provide fodder for heated debate.
The Roll Call vote shows a 71 yea 22 nay and 7 not voting tally. Of note, the Dems voting nay were: Sen. Bayh, and Sen. Feingold.
During the floor debate, Thompson is not on record as having made any comments to the body. I have thus far been unable to find any public statements from him regarding why he was against it, so I can not determine what concerns he had, personally or philosophically, with the bill. It may help to look at his votes that led up to the final vote, though in sum total, only some "assumptions" can be made. I don't want to put words in Thompson's mouth, so I'll let the record speak for itself.
On the first amendment, S.Amdt. 3557, by Byrd, "To strike section 1004 of the bill," Thompson voted yea. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Waive CBA re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 3608, as modified; To provide emergency school funding," Thompson voted nay. The vote failed.
On the "Motion to Waive CBA re: Gregg Amdt. No. 3687; To extend the strengthen procedures to maintain fiscal accountability and responsibility," Thompson voted yea. The vote failed.
On the "Motion to Table Santorum Amdt. No. 3765; To adopt the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003 reported by the Committee on the Budget for the Senate," Thompson voted yea. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 4775; 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States," Thompson voted yea. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Table McCain Amdt. No. 3703; To strike the amount provided for design of a storage facility for the Smithsonian Institution," Thompson voted nay. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Table McCain Amdt. No. 3635; To strike the amount provided for the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences," Thompson voted nay. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Table McCain Amdt. No. 3704; To strike the appropriation for Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities," Thompson voted nay. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Table Dodd Amdt. No. 3787; To allow the United States to render assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity," Thompson voted yea. The vote passed.
On S.AMDT.3597, by Warner, "To add the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002," as amended, Thompson voted yea. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Waive CBA re: Durbin Amdt. No. 3729; To increase the amount of supplemental appropriations for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund," Thompson voted nay. The vote failed.
On S.AMDT.3725, by Helms, "To increase the amount provided for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, and to impose conditions," Thompson voted yea. the voted passed.
On the "Motion to Table Nickles Amdt. No. 3588; To restore the discretion of the President to agree with Congressionally-designated emergency spending," Thompson voted nay. The vote passed.
On the "Motion to Waive CBA re: H.R. 4775; 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States," Thompson voted nay. The vote passed.
And, on the final vote itself for the passage of the bill, Thompson voted nay as I indicated earlier. I can't tell from this if he disliked the pork, the earmarks, or just exactly what he didn't like, but he disliked it all the same.
In the run up to my next piece, let me just say that my first greatest Conservative heart attack during Bush 43 was the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 which passed with a 58 yea to a 40 nay vote. Thompson voted AGAINST this bill.
I'll be back to see if I can tell you why.
Wow, that's an even better record than I could've imagined. His consistency and thoughtfulness really is evident. Thanks for the hard work!
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
legislative record during the campaign. It appears as though the DNC has hitched a ride on the unspectacular legislative record theme in its latest attack, chronicled here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4637.html
From the article:
"Working to influence news coverage, the DNC also recently began circulating a 'research document' with the headline, 'MAJOR LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SEN. FRED DALTON THOMPSON (1994-2002).' Then the page is blank until the line, 'Paid for by the Democratic National Committee.'
In addition to describing the DNC hit, the piece quotes Thompson's response to an inquiry about his record. Fred!'s response:
"It doesn't always have to do with putting your name on a piece of legislation," he finally said. "There was an awful lot of bad legislation that I helped to stop, for one thing."
Not sure what to make of that . . .
My favorite quote from the article, however, was this one:
"Friends say Thompson and his wife, Jeri, are working nearly full time getting ready for the announcement."
About what I'd expect from Phone-it-in Fred.
I have plenty of time to address ALL of the shots Fred, like the other candidates are or will be taking. First on my list is "undistinguished career in the Senate" and my focus on the things that "distinguished" him. Here, we have his votes AGAINST both sides-a term consistent with "distinction"...
Thanks for the props...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Although I see it as a difficult task to pithily explain the nuanced positions he took as a Senator to an electorate more interested in soundbite echoes than substance.
The bit on trial lawyer malpractice is a good case in point, where belonging to the offending group will not be a helpful starter.
So he's working nearly full time getting ready (in addition to, you know, his other job), therefore he's phoning it in? Ok.
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
I heard him doing a pitch for Life Lock the other day on the radio. Sounds focused on the campaign, that Fred.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"Working to influence news coverage, the DNC also recently began circulating a 'research document' with the headline, 'MAJOR LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SEN. FRED DALTON THOMPSON (1994-2002).' Then the page is blank until the line, 'Paid for by the Democratic National Committee.'
One could just as easily insert names such as "HR Clinton" or "B Obama" in there.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Hipocracy is a pillar of liberalism.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
That post was in response to bricklavin's post.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
The credibility of the messenger often is not the critical matter of hit pieces, but rather the impact of the message. Time will only tell what will or will not "stick" to Mr. Thompson.
I doubt his supporters will be totally bummed to find out he didn't get his name on a new government giveaway or a gun control bill. McCain has a long list of accomplishments in the Senate. I doubt Fred would be interested in trading legislative records.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
mikeleader
a great research job..which confirms my already strong feelings for FT's candidacy...
thanks for the facts!!
This makes my libertarian leaning heart swell with joy. If only more Republicrats would think this way.
it does this conservative heart good.
My immediate reaction was he voted against motions and amendments by most of the miscreants I'd have removed from Congress long ago, so kudos to him on that. Just one wacko name after another.
Secondly, very clear and principled conservatism guiding his votes.
Thirdly, I think we've discovered the source of the Dem attack and angst. Their version of "legislative do-nothing" is my version of good conservative. As I said in a comment to The Politico's piece today on the Dems' plans for attacking Fred, lack of legislative accomplishment is a huge plus in my book. My preference for Congress is now recess or gridlock; nothing else. Fred comes close to that. ;-) Basically he served to prevent egregious and malicious legislation from harming or crippling us in varying ways.
Let them attack him for not accomplishing anything. When he starts getting interviewed and asked about all these votes I have no doubt he'll give excellent answers. Whether the peabrains on the Dem side (including the Drive-By interviewers) will be able to comprehend is something else.
So far, this is exactly what I've been waiting to see. Thanks for doing research that most of us don't have time to do or trust the MSM to do honestly.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I don't really have the time either-this took a couple days of a little here and a little there. I did this, and will do more, because whether this convinces anyone more or less to vote for the guy, at least we'll get past all the "Frenvy™" from his opponents-all upset and making up stuff to offset a growing list of support for a guy not even in the race yet.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
It amazes me that a small-government conservative could bemoan Thompson for "not doing enough" while in Congress. At the end of the day, that's what we're looking for, right?
why are you supporters of Fred going with him instead of Brownback? Both are Senators- but at least Brownback has served and made more legislation than Fred did.
Because he is an actor? Name three things Fred accomplished as an executive in his life- and then explain how he will beat Hillary in PA, NJ, OH, and Colorado...
There are about 20 GOP senators we could plug in who have the exact same or even more distinguished voting records than Thompson- should all of them be President as well?
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
If we are just looking for someone with a long and distinguished legislative record, Teddy Kennedy is our man! He's been in the Senate since the dawn of man and has a laundry list of legislation with his fingerprints on it. His Senate resume dwarfs any possible GOP contender.
There are more important things than how long a guy has been in the Senate and the number of bills that had his name attached to them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There is a LOT to be said for Congress NOT legislating!
And it's not as if Hillary did anything in the Senate either. And Obama's two years and six months in the Senate isn't exactly a voluminous record of accomplishment. So the attacks from the Dem side on FT will backfire, too.
FT's lack of executive experience is a weakness. But his Senate record isn't.
I'll take advice on who to support from you when you stop defending Rudy Giuliani, heh. Thanks though!
Run like Reagan!
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you pulling for the same Brownback who just yesterday voted for cloture on the amnesty bill? Cause if you are, you should expect to find less and less support around here.
My apologies to the directors re the thread jack, but this reference got me going this morning and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot
because of where he is on the current amnesty bill as well as his failure to gain any traction.
Romney or Fred.
Excellent post.
Thompson's opposition to malpractice reform was the biggest problem I had with him, although it is encouraging to hear that issue being put in proper context.
If pointing out everyone one of Demophilius's aliases earned a cold one, this whole site would be drunk all the time. -Hoyasaxa
*That* is funny, sir.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
that we see Romney and Fred put their ideas and schtick up against each other for the GOP nomination and then, perhaps, form a team that takes on the Dems.
Romney or Fred.
Why arnt any of you guys talking about his voted in the senate for amnesty???
Voted in 1996 to continue chain migration
Sen. Thompson in 1996 voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664. It was a vote in favor of a chain migration system that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million. Sen. Thompson supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse’s adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain.
Voted in favor of chain migration in 1996
Sen. Thompson voted in 1996 against the Feinstein Amendment to S.1664. The Feinstein Amendment would have reduced annual admission of spouses and minor children of citizens to 480,000 and significantly reduced annual limits other categories of chain migration such as parents of citizens and adult unmarried children of citizens. By voting against the Feinstein Amendment, Sen. Thompson voted in favor of a system of chain migration that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million today.
Voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997
Sen. Thompson voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the amnesty, as it was inlcuded in the DC Appropriations bill. The only opportunity Senators had to vote in favor of or against the amnesty was the Mack Amendment to S.1156. The Mack Amendment passed 99-1.
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.
Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996
Sen. Thompson voted IN FAVOR of the Abraham Amendment to S.1664. He was part of a coalition of pro-business conservatives and liberal civil libertarians who tried to use the amendment to kill the establishment of voluntary pilot programs in high-immigration states. The programs were intended to assist employers in verifying whether people they had just hired had the legal right to work in this country. Such verification is considered by many experts to be an essential tool for withdrawing the job magnet from illegal aliens.
Info is from NumbersUSA.
Voted to strip legal reforms from 1996 bill
Sen. Thompson helped defeat legal immigration reform when he voted for Senator Spencer Abraham’s amendment to remove the legal immigration reforms from S.1664, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. This vote effectively killed any chance of Congress considering the Jordon Commission recommendations on easing legal immigration levels.
Voted for a foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud measures in 2000.
Sen.Thompson voted for S.2045, the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. On the heels of the release of a GAO report finding no proof of a high-tech worker shortage and evidence of abuse in the H-1B program, Sen. Thompson voted for this foreign worker bill that contained no worker protections or anti-fraud measures.
As Committee member, produced H-1B doubling bill in 1998
Sen. Thompson was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that created the Abraham H-1B doubling bill in 1998, S.1723.
Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998
Sen. Thompson helped the Senate pass S.1723 in a 78-20 vote. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Sen. Thompson voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.
Voted in committee against including worker safeguards in H-1B bill in 1998
Sen. Thompson joined 9 of his Senate colleagues to keep employee safeguards from inclusion in S.1723. An amendment would have accomplished two important goals: ensuring no American was laid off or displaced prior to hiring an H1B employee; and, that employers demonstrate they had previously taken timely and effective steps to hire a qualified American.
Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998
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.
Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998
Before the Senate passed the H-1B doubling bill(S.1723), Sen. Thompson had an opportunity to vote for an amendment that would have prohibited U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans.
Sen. Thompson opposed that protection.
Most of these are not amnesty votes, but votes on tweaking policies on legal immigration. They're worth discussing, but not as amnesty votes.
Even the Cuba/Nicaragua example is minor compared to the real issue of the legislation now before Congress, which is sort-of amnesty for 12 million people (although no one really knows for sure how many!).
Sen. Thompson supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse’s adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain. How many millions of people are here illegal because of this legislation? One million? Two? Twelve? As you said, no one reall knowsfor sure how many.
And what about him protecting compaines from having to pay higher fines for hiring illegals? How does he explain that?
that chain migration (legal) is different than the current immigration debate. Good. Let's see what else? Hmmm Cubans? I think of the US as a good place for Cuban refugees (and other political refugees as well). And there are a lot of us that want a path to citizenship for those 12 million already in the country, but only after the border is secure.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
"that chain migration (legal) is different than the current immigration debate. Good."
because everyone knows once a visa expires, those people leave the country immediately and take the 20+ family members they brought over, with them. Get real.
"I think of the US as a good place for Cuban refugees (and other political refugees as well)."
How about the 12 million Mexican refugees. Is it a good place for them too?
"And there are a lot of us that want a path to citizenship for those 12 million already in the country"
So you admit it, Fred is the Pro-Amnesty candidate.
Seems that you can't distinguish my stance from FDT's, good grief - read it again, I support a path to citizenship, there are other people that do as well, (this may or may not include Fred Dalton Thompson, but I didn't address that).
The political refugee is a direct response to the Cubans and Nicaraguans, not Mexicans (and though I can live with a path to citizenship for the illegals in this country, I would like to see some reforms of the Mexican government as well, but we really can't impose that. That's a discussion for another day), but a nice try at obfuscation. The 12 million or so illegally in this country are a strain on our social services, but not on our economy - once the border is secure, working on a path to citizenship will help that.
Regarding the chain migration, you should be arguing for a change in the law (and/or enforcement of current law for Visa overstays) but instead you are saying that it's against the law. See you're having trouble distinguishing with that reading comprehension thingy again.
PS. Before you subscribe any other incorrect positions to me, I want a secure border (fence, more BP, etc) before doing anything about the people already in the country.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
As I didnt ask for yours, but thanks for the info.
Did his votes help or hurt the illegal immigration problem? I think he helped illegals. I think he helped them at our expense and nobody here has done anything but condescend and try to belittle me for daring to point it out.
You win more bees with honey than you do vinegar and so far, from my short stay here, as so many of you were so kind to point out, Fred supporters are full of vinegar. Its almost like you guys are intentionally trying to turn people off to him. Is that it? Do you really work for other campaigns and this is just a ruse to piss off people? Its not only briliant, but I think it may just very well be working! LOL
shaking my head.
inner troll in you is starting to emerge. If you ever expected anyone to listen to or care about what you are saying (Fred supporters or other), you've pretty much flushed that expectation down the pot now.
Now go back to watching SpongeBob or whatever toys you were playing with before you arrived here.
Nice reply - no substance at all. I busted all of your 'arguments' and you quickly try to change direction.
Did his votes help or hurt the illegal immigration problem?
You can't be this stupid, right? Those were votes on changes to legal immigration (you do know that legal and illegal are two separate things?). It was answered above, you didn't like the answer but it was answered. Now enforcement of said laws rest on the executive branch of government, see this is how our founders set it up. Since FDT was in the legislative branch he did not have control over the enforcement of these laws. There are plenty of laws currently on the books, but the current administration (along with previous administrations) are not enforcing the laws already on the books. It's like you're asking a City Councilman to start patrolling the streets stopping theft and pulling people over for DUIs. Now even though I went to a public school, I happened to pay attention in 9th grade civics class where we learned that the executive and legislative branched did different things.
BTW, we're not belittling you for pointing anything out, we're belittling you because you seem incapable of understanding what you read.
So to sum up:
1. Illegal and legal don't mean the same thing.
2. The executive branch of our government is tasked with enforcing our laws.
3. Illegal and legal are not the same thing.
4. It's flies, not bees. You catch flies with honey, bees make honey (this pattern of not understanding who does what runs deep with you).
5. Illegal and legal. Not. Same. Thing.
Cheers.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Let's get an answer from the man himself:
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.
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.
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.
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.
You've been wrong on everything you have posted. You should quit while you're behind.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I'm just waiting for him to trot out Thompson's vote on 0.08 BAC or his vote on the tax cuts as more evidence of Thompson's enthusiasm for amnesty.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"there are no bees to win" that's gotta be a line from the new Simpsons movie :)
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
So Bush gets blasted for his amnesty bill by all ...while you turn a blind eye to Fred's pro-amesty record?
What gives?
and that you did your best. It's just not good enough.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
why cant all you address his pro-amensty record? Cat got your tongues?????
waiting.....
When you start spamblasting the same propaganda post in multiple threads, you have no credibility and SHOULDN'T be answered.
Run like Reagan!
the reason FT's handlers are smart to keep him under tight control was evident yesterday when he answered the question regarding lobbying. his response is huge fodder for the Dems.
look at the site of his competitors AZ for Mitt.
one can't just assault RG, MR for what they said "x" years ago, one has to look at what everyone said ... and a lot of it is just nonsense wagging of fingers.
Dont address me, address his record.
still waiting.....
(1) If you are affiliated with another campaign or campaign site, you will disclose that, or be banned
(2) There is a "Reply to this" link at the bottom of every comment. You will use it when responding to a comment.
-The Mgmt.
I am not affiliated with any campaign. Im jsut an empassioned voter who wants to know why nobody is talking about Fred Thompsons pro-amnesty record.
I did use the Reply link.
What, exactly, do H1B visa quotas have to do with amnesty? Absolutely nothing. So why are you spamming about H1B visa quotas?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Why did he Vote to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998!!!
Why did he vot to kill programs that were intended to assist employers in verifying whether people they had just hired had the legal right to work in this country!!!!!
Why did Sen. Thompson, in committee consideration of S.1664 protected businesses from having to pay higher fines when they are caught hiring illegal aliens!!!!
Why did he vote to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S!!!
Why?
still waiting....
He's obviously on the payroll of the secret world government. The same one that is going to build that highway of doom from Canada to Mexico. You know, the one that will cause the United States to cease to exist as a nation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Voting Record
US Senate Bldg.
Washington D.C.
Dear Voting Record,
You are impressive, my friend. When I look at your six lovely years (And they have been good to you! You look even better with the passage of time!) I yearn for the days when you will be reflected in the activities of the Oval Office.
If I can help you any any way, you let me know, you lovely jewel you.
Hugs and Kisses,
I Try To Be Nice
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Bee-yoo-ti-ful.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Fred wont ever see the Oval Office. The American public is not going to elect another Rove puppet who has a senate record of favoring foreigners/ illegals over Americans. Just how long do you think the media will sit on it? I'd say until 2/6/07.
Fred Thompson is Karl Roves last rope a dope.
And here I thought Fred was taking orders from Halliburton.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
thats what I said. Are you denying Karl Roves involvement in his campaign? How long before Fred announces Tim the ragin cagin Griffin will be his campaign manager?
All those voter suppression and election tampering allegations are just going to to play out so well in a general election! The media would never think of using it against him! n o t.
Come on guys. Why all the dishonesty? People have a right to know who they are voting for and who the man behind the curtain is.
All those voter suppression and election tampering allegations are just going to to play out so well in a general election!
Those stupid Republicans, all under command of the evil Rove who is always looking for an election to steal. You forgot to bring up Diebold in your rant, so I'll have to subtract a few points for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As you keep at this "Fred is pro-amnesty" gig, I wonder...what else you got man? I mean, after all, the majority of peeps in the Senate seem to be...what exactly is your goal here?
You suggested earlier you are not affiliated with any campaign, but your shtick would seem to indicate you are somebody's "bot."
You got anything else, man? You dun played this one out. Go away already, or tell us ALL about the Rove puppet's other sins...mkay?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I could give a flip about your obsessions...have at it-but you are wasting a lot of time with this drivel..I don't see any black helicopters out my window...and, the Karl Rove tin foil hat is a bit used up, dontcha think?
Say what you will about Thompson or anyone else-God gave you that ability.
Many here disagree, and calling us stupid (directly or otherwise) because of your grasp of some higher evolutionary accomplishment is not consistent with the posting guidelines.
Have you met my friend Moe?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
http://dcprotestwarrior.blogspot.com
Cause he's scared. Haystack did a good job of addressing FDT's voting record in the original post. BTW, Thanks for this great piece Haystack. I have freinds who need to know stuff like this, so it's very much appreciated.
FDT is a Federalist, an advocate of the 10th Amendment.
You should read it, instead of spamming redstate, townhall, etc, on every FDT article, commentary, and column message board.
A future post will have it as the title:
Frenvy™
Which is exactly what his opponents are suffering with since he is doing so many things so well without even having announced yet...heh
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
This is just one more in a series of articles I've read about Fred. A little more knowledge about a man I've watched for 33 years.
I won't say he's perfect - but he's the first candidate for any office in my 51 years of political involvement for whom I've never found a significant reason to question either his integrity or his philosophy.
I realize we've got about 16 months to go, but I'm with Fred.