What Fred Said LATER in Nashville Tonight
By Tennyson Posted in Breaking News — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Earlier this evening Fred Thompson and a few hundred supporters had the opportunity to get a sneak peek at the "stump speech" for his upcoming campaign. While he may still be "testing the waters", its clear that not only is the water warm, if it were much hotter, it would be boiling. I'm going to dispense with any pretense that Fred Thompson isn't going to run for President. I'm just happy to be able to see if from the beginning...
One thing that is clear is that this is a man with a message.
I will do my best to accurately paraphrase that message below so that those reading RedState can see the true vision of this quite impressive man:
After an initial joke about Amb. Joe Roger's key contribution to laying the foundation of the Sarkozy victory in France and a hat tip to Trace Atkins (that's a tall man in person - even after standing next to Fred), Fred rolled into his speech... ( I'm going to distill the speech a little since it was delivered more in the way of talk to a large dinner audience than to an audience like the one here )
Right now we live in times of great challenges. There are key issues that will forever shape the face of the world we live in and the nation that our children and grandchildren grow up in.
(1) The Threat to Western Civilization Posed by Radical Islam
We have to recognize the degree and severity of the threat posed by Radical Islam. They have already killed thousands of us and, if allowed to, would kill millions. They see this as a many centuries struggle. We must be resolved to fight this war as long as it takes so that they do not achieve their hopes and dreams. They are willing to sacrifice millions of people to see the end of Western Civilization and we must understand this. We must be unrelenting in our advance and be fully committed to winning this long war. The consequences of failure are an end to life as we know it today.
(2) The Looming Problem of Entitlements with an Aging Population
In addition to the national security challenges we face, we have domestic challenges of a great magnitude. For one thing, we are living a lot longer. While that is a blessing, it could become a curse for our social programs. Soon the number of workers supporting the retired population will be at an all time low. With the current structured of entitlements, it will not be too long until those programs consume all of the Federal Budget when that plurality of the population retires. This is unsustainable. Many politicians are not talking about this because it is not going to happen tomorrow or the day after, but the day is soon coming and we can little afford to wait any longer to deal with it. The solution is not and cannot be larger taxes. We have proven over and over again throughout modern history that it is essential to keep tax rates low and that actually increases revenues into the Treasury. Early this year in April, we had the largest receipt of taxes in a single day than at any time in the history of the U.S. - this after the substantial lowering of taxes in the Bush Administration. It is a real irony that with all of this evidence, we have to keep fighting every year to keep taxes from being raised. We also have to fight each year to keep the government from laying on more and more regulations that take power from the states and arrogate it to the Federal Government. We must have a vibrant and active economy coupled with key reforms in these programs to face up to this looming challenge.
(3) The Competitiveness of the United States in a Global Economy
Part of the challenges we are facing is that our workers are now competing in a global economy. They are competing with other workers from China and India. We should not fear this - America has the most skilled and competent workers in the world. We are not, however, doing everything we need to do to ensure that this continues in the future. For one thing, when companies in America have a higher corporate tax rate than in France or Germany, something is wrong. Higher than France... (no attempt to mention Amb. Rogers on this area )
We face some really great challenges. I truly believe that we are at a crossroads as a country on these issues and others. But, we are not without a guide in this journey. We have something we can look to.
(4) The Wisdom of the Founders
We should turn our thoughts and attention back to out two founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In the Declaration we find our common values - a nation under God where our rights our given to us by our Creator. It is not in the powers of men or government to take them away. Governments and men are to uphold and defend these rights - that is why they are instituted. We are to be a free people - holding properties, participating in free commerce, respecting the liberties of others, and fostering a culture of Life. It is in our founding. We are not just given principles by our founders, but a form that tries to ensure that those principles will be made manifest and maintained for generations to come. That is where we must look to the Constitution as a system designed to ensure and guard those liberties for a long, long time. With its clear sets of checks and balances, separation of powers, and delineation of power and responsibility of Federal and State governments, it gives us a rich and true guideline for guarding and nurturing the rights of a free people into a prosperous state.
(5) Eternal Truths and a New American Political Coalition
Many things are changing in this world, but we must also remember that there is much about man and human nature that does not change. Our founders understood this and we must understand it again. We must rise to this time and these challenges. With a common commitment, we can build a new coalition of Republicans, some Democrats, and many Independents to our common American creed.
That is what I think is possible. Challenges that are great but that can be overcome together by an attention to the wisdom of those that came before us. We have faced it before in wars, depressions, and many other times. We can and must face up to this again. We are the hope of the Western World. It is our calling and duty to respond. Thank you all. I am overwhelmed by the outpouring of support and will do my utmost to fulfill the mission ahead of us.
As someone who goes back to 1994 as a Fred supporter, I can honestly say that something has changed in the man. The competency is still there as is the substantial intelligence. The voice is constant, but the mind is more seasoned. Not as much by age as by consideration and a deliberation that runs deep. He is not just the competent reformer with integrity that ran in 1994. He is now a man wrapped up in seeking out the foundation on which to set the country on the right direction. He speaks of the foundational documents with an almost scriptural reverence and passion - something that seemed new and fresh in his mind. Like a man who had read something over and over to understand for procedural reasons, being suddenly struck by a truth that moved his being, Fred Thompson seems a man possessed of a vision of renewal and restoration for a country he sees languishing. The current leaders are not up to the challenge and, while he had not deep or great desire for his own satisfaction to be a driving force in that renewal, he seems to be the only man with a clear vision for it and the talents to obtain it. He seems a man called.
There are some things to understand about Fred Thompson - he's not an ideological social conservative (though he would agree with them on most issues). He is, however, a social conservative because he is wise, decent, and understands the effects of personal behavior and responsibility on the community well being. That is his core and his philosophy flows from it.
Thompson is a fiscal conservative because (1) he is driven by evidence and reason, (2) he recognizes the constancy of human nature and the alignment of it with free enterprise, and (3) he reveres the wisdom of the Founders.
Thompson is a national security conservative because he knows that many of our enemies really are truly evil. Al Qaeda is not some movement. It is a demonic influence that masks serial killer psychosis in the veneer of religious fervor. He seem suspicious of whether or not a lot of the islamic world (if left to itself) would reconcile itself to Western Civilization. He seeks to make that a non-negotiable item. He is likely agnostic about whether a "war of civilizations" can be avoided (as President Bush has tried so hard to avoid). It is not in the power of the Western World to convince Islam and current Islamic governments to tolerate other views. It is only in the power of the West (and indeed it is the moral obligation of the leaders of the West) to win such a war if it comes to that or strategically force a "surrender" that can be had without a full blown war.
Another key element of his national security philosophy is that the United States (and its military) is an extension of the goodness of the America vision. It is not a source for suspicion, but should always be given the benefit of a doubt because of the millions and millions of souls across the earth that have been liberated by it.
Fred Thompson is a "wise" conservative in the mold of John Adams. This is a man for our times.
My hope is that the other decent and accomplished men and supporters of them in the upcoming primary will come together around the principles Fred is articulating (whether they adopt him as their candidate or not) so that should he win, we will still find ourselves unified as "wise" conservatives to build a coalition of prudence, passion, and patriotism that has the power to solve the challenges that are motivating Fred to run. Wherever you are right now in that process, I'd hope that we can look forward to the day when the debates and primaries are done, and take this vision to every corner of this nation.
It is time for America - in its greatness and goodness - to rise again.
I may have to jump on the bandwagon early.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
....but a Themistocles to carry out the next stage of the war.
Thompson speaks with an intelligent, sober reasoning that I suspect will resonate with a lot of people. Though I am a Rudy supporter, I could be persuaded by a thoughtful and resonant arguement in favor of Western Civilization.
Notice that all three serious Republican candidates, Rudy, Thompson, and Mitt, are making resolute prosection of the GWOT central to their platform. Meantime, both Democratic candidates are pandering to their Michael Moore base.
Do not think this won't have an effect in a national contest. It is the one reason I believe that Republicans will hold the WH in 2008.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
It would appear that "cultishness" has risen to new heights at Fredstate. Pretty thick syrup:
"He is now a man wrapped up in seeking out the foundation on which to set the country on the right direction. He speaks of the foundational documents with an almost scriptural reverence and passion - something that seemed new and fresh in his mind. Like a man who had read something over and over to understand for procedural reasons, being suddenly struck by a truth that moved his being, Fred Thompson seems a man possessed of a vision of renewal and restoration for a country he sees languishing. The current leaders are not up to the challenge and, while he had not deep or great desire for his own satisfaction to be a driving force in that renewal, he seems to be the only man with a clear vision for it and the talents to obtain it. He seems a man called."
I ask only that either you adopt the "cult" label for yourselves or remove it from the "Romneybots" of the world, as it appears that many of you have become what you spurned. The Romneybot collective will be much obliged.
Also, since we are going to champion Phone-it-In's newfound reverence for the founding documents (at age 64) and attribute it to seasoning and maturation, I suppose we are willing to take Romney at face value for his seasoning on life issues. That's great news indeed.
bricklevin --
I've just spent the past twenty minutes reading through about half your posts.
Maybe you could rename yourself -- "Sabo-Fred" or "Soft selling for flip-flopping Mitt."
Now, I don't think Mitt's a flip-flopper, but you've used the phrase "Phone it in Fred" about a zillion times. Do you have anything to add to the discourse or is your job to:
a) give soft approval to all pro-Romeny posts and
b) type "Phone it in Fred" on all the Thompson posts
Truly, I like both men and would like to see an actual discourse of their ideas and experience and frankly you're not helping with the constant name calling.
Not sure if an editor wants to look further into all this or what is appropriate action. "bricklevin" is one of "us," so I'm not saying extreme predujice is needed, but I wanted to call attention to this behaviour so that people don't mistake it for spontaneous and heart felt.
Romney or Fred.
I've used Phone-it-in-Fred a total of three times, counting this response. Sorry it seems like a zillion.
I am a passionate Romney supporter, unaffiliated with the campaign or any other website, who checks in at Redstate frequently. I don't think I have concealed my support for Romney, and believe that an inquiry into my posting history will show as much.
I appreciate the articles and blogs on other matters, particularly those tracing the progress of legislation on the Hill. While I read most posts on the site, my schedule dictates that I limit my engagement in discussion. Right now, the 2008 campaign is foremost in my mind, I have a horse in the race, and thus the topic comprises the majority of my posts.
I do not think Romney is the perfect candidate, but I do think he is the best, all things considered. I have agreed on this site with legitimate criticisms of Romney and conceded at times where he has been shown up by other candidates (Third Republican debate, for example, which I still feel he lost).
I have praise for Thompson on his vision and his current positions. I can understand why he is popular with many, but find his overall offering to be unspectacular and ill-fitted for the task compared to Romney.
His sideline, front porch strategy is a calculated risk that may pay off, but to me and many others it has effectively put us off, and I have no trouble saying so.
I find great irony in Fred supporters that in the past (and some in the present) declared open season on the "Romneybots" for their passion about Romney yet have fallen into the very same pattern in their passion for Thompson, as well as those who cannot read anything about Romney's positions without beating the flip-flop drum, all the while refusing to acknowledge the shifts and "nuances" of their own candidate.
I agree that supporters of all varieties visit the site and make their presence felt. I also believe that the vocal majority (or at least most vocal group of suppoerters) is firmly in the Fred camp, (not to mention the esteemed CEO) and that someone has to play the role of the spoiler at the party. :)
I'm sorry that my "name calling" rubs you the wrong way. My chosen terms for Fred reflect my actual perceptions of him, and convey more, I think, than a drawn out explanation. I do respect that you view both candidates favorably. Remember though, that I don't. My second choice would probably be Huckabee, though I have reservations with him as well. I believe Fred is ill-equiped for the task, despite his rhetoric, name recognition, and popularity.
if you like. But, from one Romney supporter to another, I can advise you that this will not be as helpful as explaining why you prefer Romney to Thompson, which I think you did quite skillfully.
I will back Romney in the primaries. He is a real conservative.
Both Romney and Thompson (either one) are acceptable candidates to me.
Giuliani and McCain are not.
I've been a fan of Fred (not a cult follower) since 1994. I'm just a different kind of fan now. I aligned a lot closer to Sen. Frist on many things, but there is something about Fred that is deeper and wiser now (not really that different on issues). I say this as a close observer for many years - not some sycophant.
I'd ask the current Romney and Rudy supporters (who seem to swarm every Fred post here at RedState) - have you supported Romney or Rudy for more than a decade? How many of you helped elect Romney as Governor? How many thought the world of him when he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994? As for Rudy, how many of you were big fans of him as a national, conservative leader when he first ran against David Dinkins?
There may be a lot of "Fred Heads" out there. I don't think that applies here. I'm just calling it like I see it. This is the first time I'd seen or talked to Fred since all this began a few months ago (outside of one correspondence) and it was something to see.
Bottom line - those that support Fred now don't need to shill for anything or tear down Rudy or Romney. They are each accomplished men. Far better than the jokes that are being put up on the Democratic side. Let's compare:
Democrat Front Runners:
Obama -
- someone with 2 years nation experience
- a member of a very radical left wing, anti-white church
- admitted drug user
- gets sensitive about people making fun of his ears
- books of vapid, rehashed liberal platitudes that sell because Oprah likes them
Hillary Clinton
- the most corrupt First Lady in history
- will put Bill Clinton back in the White House and let him fly around the world as the "First Man" of the U.S.
- made the most aggressive attempt in the history of the Federal Gov't to socialize 1/7th of the U.S. economy (the Health Care system)
- has less experience (not counting the eight years as co-President with Bill Clinton) than most running on the Republican side
John Edwards
- a slick, trial lawyer whose only skill is motivating unsophisticated juries to stick it to "the man"
- a hypocrite of the first order in stirring class envy (even Soviet officials would be impressed with the degree of hypocrisy)
- shamelessly uses the health condition of his wife and proclamations of faith to promote his campaign and gain sympathy
Compare that to:
Rudy Giuliani
- impeccable record as a prosecutor on the national stage
- did for New York City what Ronald Reagan did for America in the 1980s ~ made it safe, prosperous, and a beckon of excellence compared to where it was when he took over
- managed one of the largest economies in the World (NYC)
Mitt Romney
- a business success story of the first order
- proven track record of turning around broken and dysfunctional agencies and situations
- wickedly smart and methodical in every undertaking he's tried
- a Governor (successful) of one of the Union's largest and most technically and economically forward looking states
Fred Thompson
- a man of proven integrity and vigilance in routing out corruption (Nixon, Gov. Blanton, etc)
- a tremendous communicator with a clear, deep, and consistent philosophy that aligns with the vast majority of the American people
- a disciplined Senator and unifier who saw his job more as reforming and monitoring Gov't than expanding it by attaching his name to many new laws and regulations
- a serious legal mind who has worked directly or indirectly on many Constitutional and commercial issues of great import (though rarely covered by the media)
John McCain (though I think he is falling out of the top tier for good now)
- a war hero of great stature
- a diligent and tireless advocate of defending this nation's security
- a reformer (though potential misguided in some of his solutions)
- a lifetime of proven service on the most important issues facing our nation.
Alright - so given this, can we stop trying to take down these men and focus at the problem at hand. Namely, that the American people aren't laughing off the Democratic candidates as the jokes they really are?
There are times to break the 11th Commandment - like on Immigration - but now isn't one of them.
My post was not directed at you so much as those of your colleagues who took swipes not only at Romney the candidate, but at his supporters as well. Your post qualified as Exhibit A to make my point.
I appreciate your respect for Thompson, and I don't believe that having supported him for a long time somehow legitimizes the discipled praise given him over that of a shorter term supporter.
I have supported Romney since his run against Kennedy in 1994. As a man and a leader, I have always thought the world with him. I didn't agree with his public stance on abortion at the time, and I am grateful that he has since taken a different direction. I did feel he was a great opponent against Kennedy and realized he was running as a Republican in a very, very liberal state that also happened to be his home. It turned out that he made as much progress on life issues as anyone could have during his tenure as governor, and I am very proud of him for doing so. I have followed his career since 1993 and have been very impressed with him both in the private and public sectors as well as in his personal life. As I am sure there are many who have associated with Thompson and his family for years, so there are many who have done so with Romney.
I'm glad my post is exhibit A. Those that are convicted conservatives can read it and realize a little more of what Fred really believes in when he is only among close supporters - not just when the cameras are on.
I will also gladly take the comparison of Thompson supporters that have good grounds for that support vs. those that resort to name calling or have insecurities around Romney such that they have to attack anyone that doesn't support him. It is this very culture of unjustified loyalty to someone who doesn't seem to have a real "core" - though plenty of talent - that is "off putting" to us.
Finally, anyone who would brag about how good Romney did in his 1994 bid against Ted Kennedy is existing in a parallel universe that I cannot begin to comprehend. The greatest opportunity in the most opportune year to knock off one of the great liberal despots of modern politics was squandered because of an inability to show any ideological difference between Romney and Kennedy on nearly every issue. Seeing that debate was like watching Highlander 2 without good popcorn or alcohol. The hits just kept on coming...
I have nightmares where Mitt caves the same way starring down Hillary across a debate stage and we end up with the Clintons running this country again in precisely this critical time. I don't know the consequences of another Clinton.
It may be a city instead of a few buildings...
Romney gave Kennedy the strongest fight he has ever had in 1994. Kennedy is not exactly chump change in MA, and Romney wasn't exactly playing to a warm conservative crowd ala the likes of that in TN. Massachusetts voters may have been ready for fiscal conservatism, but they most certainly were not going to sign on to the pro-life cause in 1994.
As I've said, I didn't enjoy hearing his line on abortion in the 1994 debate, though I got to know and respect him as a leader and a man through contact with his family at that time. I am proud of his efforts on life as governor. I am proud that when push came to shove and he was called upon to act in an executive capacity, he came down firmly on the side of life. He earned my trust on other counts long ago, and he has now earned my trust on the life issue. He has kept his campaign promises in the past, even if I didn't agree with them. There is no reason to believe he won't do so again.
Though you may not trust Romney as I do, please do not insult me by calling my loyalty unjustified.
good stump speech ... but so what ... what other GOP candidate would not make the same stump or fundraising speech?
FT is an accomplished actor / pitchman. Great it is helpful. he is no RR ... even close ... in experience.
pls answer the following question:
cite me three specific FT accomplishments in his various careers as trial lawyer > lobbyist > Congress > lobbyist / part time actor?
As someone else said, you're a one-hit wonder man. Get a new line of attack.
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
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.
JUST SAY NO TO AMNESTY : VOTE ABF : ANYONE BUT FRED
Contraindicated, Sparky. Don't do it again.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I do work, in a hospital, and it has nothing to do with politics. I am a voter who has questions about Freds pro-amnesty voting record. A record neither he nor his supporters will address. Why is that?
His voting record is staunchly pro-amnesty. When will he address this for the voters?
is that you've been here two weeks and your only current contribution has been to post the same long anti-fred piece twice (and then defend it).
Romney or Fred.
I just dont see what the problem is. I have legitimate questions and instead of addressing those questions, they want to address the length of my membership on the site?Its all very strange to me. I can only deduce that they have no answer for Fred's senate voting record.
I guess that upsets people. But they really need to take a look at it, because if they think he can dodge the subject for 18 months, they are kidding themselves.
I see no mention of "amnesty" in anything you listed here. You may not like the H1B system, I do. I wish we had more. That isn't amnesty. That is improving American competitiveness.
As to Cubans and Nicaraguans. Cubans can't, by definition, be illegal because once they set foot in the US, by law, they are eligible for political asylum. Under Reagan the same rules were applied to Nicaraguan refugees from the Sandinistas. I don't have a problem with that.
Really, anyone other than a frothing Buchananite nativist wouldn't have an issue with much on your list. Voting with the majority in an 70-28 vote is hardly a scandal.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Voted in 1996 to continue chain migration
Not amnesty.
Voted in favor of chain migration in 1996
Not amnesty.
Voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997
About the only thing close to approaching amnesty.
In 1996, removed higher fines for businesses which hire illegal aliens
Not amnesty.
Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996
Not amnesty.
Voted to strip legal reforms from 1996 bill
Not amnesty.
Voted for a foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud measures in 2000.
Not amnesty.
As Committee member, produced H-1B doubling bill in 1998
Not amnesty.
Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998
Not amnesty.
Voted in committee against including worker safeguards in H-1B bill in 1998
Not amnesty
Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998
Not amnesty.
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.
So do you favor the federal government controlling who corporations can hire? Would it be better if corporations closed their American facilities and moved oversees?
Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998
Not amnesty.
JUST SAY NO TO AMNESTY : VOTE ABF : ANYONE BUT FRED
You have just shown that Fred Thompson has voted in favor of amnesty exactly one time under circumstances no where near the comprehensive immigration reform bill currently being pushed.
ABF? Guiliani, who declared New York a sanctuary city? Romney, who never did anything in MA against illegal immigrants? McCain, who is pushing the current amnesty bill? Brownback, who favors the current amnesty bill? Etc.
you haven't exactly established yourself as someone who everyone turns and listens and responds to. In fact, I can't recall your having posted much of anything before. Most here like to look into things and respond somewhat authoritatively rather than just popping off what they feel about something. Most also don't approve of posts using all caps. I frankly don't know anything about why FDT cast those votes, but superficially, they look like caucus votes in committee. If I decide to care, I might go look into it, then again, I might not. I assure you that further taunting won't do anything to endear you here or cause you to be taken more seriously.
In Vino Veritas
I dont care if you accept me or not. Im not seeking your approval and I apologize if I misled you to think that I was.
Fred Thompson is looking for votes. He better start earning them. The first thing he can do to earn my vote is to explain to me his pro-amnesty voting record. I dont care about anything but that right now, and he is strangely silent on the subject. So are his biggest supporters. I find that to be suspicious. So I came to redstate, a well known pro-thomspon website to look for answers. There are none. Why is that?
"...a well known pro-thomspon website..." Please, you are killing me. There are definitely Thompson supporters here, but there are a lot of other supporters here as well. I suggest you check out the site a little more before making grossly inaccurate statements that undermine your creditability.
and I stand by what I said...just a glance over at the side bar and it has 4 different entries regarding Fred and none for the other 10 Republicans running.
next....
...making asinine assertions like calling RS a "well-known pro-thomspon [sic] website" isn't going to gain you a bit. I find the even mix of Thompson, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani supporters here rather odd, in fact.
I was inclined to listen to your posting, since I work in the tech industry and I believe H-1B visas are almost as bad as the CIR bill, and what's being passed wrt. H-1B in the CIR will make things even worse. However, my esteemed colleagues here seem to be vetting you out now, and you ain't doing yourself any favors.
If you would spend maybe 2 minutes searching RS, you'd easily find the "answers" you are seeking. Until then, you might consider stepping away from the keyboard and pondering the fact that you might have stepped into a world where your sound bites might not play.
Its a common tactic to attack the messenger and not the message. Who I am or what my opinion of the site is, has no real bearing on Thompsons pro-amnesty voting record. The knee jerk reacton of the posters around here speaks volumes. You wouldnt be one of the FReak Republic types would you?
what's your problem?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I won't....my problem is your attitude, and the way you interact...kind of like a 15 year old....oh, snicker, snicker.
But who am I....you been here soooooo long.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
that my attitude and length of membership are bigger issue on this forum than 22 million illegals in this country and the voting record of a Presidential candidate who helped them get here.
for 2 weeks and pop off to others with attitude,.... and can't understand why people confront you and infer you are a punk.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
You find it strange that people come here, to this opinion forum, and post their opinion?
Would you still find it strange for me to be posting my opinion here if we shared the same opinion, or is just becuase mine differs that you find it so strange?
opinion...I just think you've been posting like a punk, making stupid false statements, in a confrontational way...to which it seems others do feel the same way.
I just call'm the way I see'm............................snicker, headshake, followed by a snort!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
once again that is a matter of opinion and its not one that I hold.
I dont sugar coat things or play kissy face with people over things as serious as illegal immigration.
Nobody wants to talk about his record. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if when I posted it everyone just came out right and said that. Instead we went rounds over my posting style.
once again that is a matter of opinion and its not one that I hold.
I dont sugar coat things or play kissy face with people over things as serious as illegal immigration.
Nobody wants to talk about his record. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if when I posted it everyone just came out right and said that. Instead we went rounds over my posting style.
Share with us your opinions of these three candidates vis-a-vis illegal immigration. I ask, because if we trash FDT, those are the three gentlemen among who we will be stuck choosing.
Please don't tell me you think McLame will be more gung-ho on border enforcement than THompson.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
1. McCain - I wouldnt vote for, for the same reasons I wont vote Fred. He advances the causes of non-Americans at the expense of Americans.
2. Romney - I would vote for him. He doesnt offend me, but at the same time he doesnt inspire me. Sort of indifferent to him. I need to look into him more.
3. Giuliani - I would vote for him. I read his book. He has an amazing track record with proven results. His compstat program was brilliant. I am pro-life, I have wrestled with his position, but its not the biggest issue we are facing today.
4. Hunter - I think this man is very sincere and genuine and I find him endearing. I wish he was getting the free exposure Thompson is. But that would require him to be a manipulator and I just dont think its in him. I would definately vote for him.
5. Brownback - Gillmore- I cant tell which one is which to be honest.
6. Ron Paul - No Never.
That the extent of my leaning right now.
How about you?
They would both be disqualified on their immigration positions based on your criteria. Unless you think sanctuary cities are cool and regularization of the illegals who are already here (aka amnesty) is just groovy so long as Fred isn't involved.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I will be looking into their records. Right now Fred is the big buzz, so I have been lookig into his. I think what offends me the most is the vote to allow firms to lay off Americans so they could give the jobs to immigrants. In fact it makes me sick.
But thanks for the suggestion.
he just does not get me excited.
He actually reminds me of a conservative/Republican Al Gore mor than a new Ronald Reagan. May be its just the temperment of Tennessee politicians but, I have yet to see any from either party that can keep me awake when they are talking.
This race clearly is between Fred and Rudy from this point on.
The problem is that you seem to show up wherever anybody posts anything about Thompson. Rudy's track record on illegal immigration ain't exactly the greatest. I like Rudy, but at the same time, I'm happy to support him. You're taking Ron Paul supporter facts out of context, and don't think they won't try to derail your candidate when the time comes (even more than they already have).
www.race42008.com
www.fredthompsonnmo.wordpress.com
www.conservablogs.com/blogsforthompson
Well I have been waiting for Freds voting recording on amnesty to be addressed. Everyone keeps talking about Fred, he is all the buzz, but nobody is talking about his amnesty record. This is strange to me because all anyone seems to be talking about is the current amnesty bill and for them not even mention Fred's record on it, is shady. So when I see a site that says they are addressing his voting record, as this dones, but fail to mention the amnesty votes, it raises an eyebrow and I have to say something.
I have another question. I know Fred gets paid to blog for ABC and Townhall. Can you tell me if he has a ghost writer or does he actually write all of that himself?
Jim,
I haven't jumped in before, partly because I'm holding back until the campaign develops further and until I can see Fred as a candidate versus his current role as an observer.
You have repeatedly raised questions about Fred Thompson's record. These are good questions; however, the other people here at RedState are not under any obligation to answer your questions, and badgering them won't make them more willing to answer you. You've put your concerns into the ether; others who read them can weigh them as they see fit.
You seem to have reached a stand-off with quite a few posters here. In this situation, since some of them have "guns" (e.g. Moe) and you don't, the course of discretion is to back off. There's plenty of other topics that I'm sure we'd like to hear your thoughts on. Don't be a "beat one issue into the ground" sort of guy here.
At this point, you really should address your Fred questions to Fred's "campaign team" (or equivalent). There are some "I support Fred" blogs or websites out there (RedState is not one of them) and I recommend you taking your questions to them.
Good luck.
I cant say that everything Fred Thompson has done or said I would agree with but all in all I think he's the best of the best, he's got my vote! I like McCain. Being a war hero is a lot in my book but I dont think that he's got the push that Thompson has. Whoever is chosen as the Republican candidate for President has my vote not just because I'm a republican but because I see real problems that will surface if Obama or Clinton get into office. I have proposed here a couple times that I believe a concrete and steel Berlin type wall be built on our southern border and controlled by electronics and troops. The idea wasn't very well taken here but hey, we all have opinions.
By the way I'd really like to See FDT take on Senator Jim DeMint as a running mate if Fred makes it that far, which I hope for the sake of our country he does.
"Jim Robinson" is strangely silent. He'll probably stay that way.
"Jim" haunts blogs and message boards and posts the same basic anti-Thompson messages over and over.
He has a posting career that a lot of us would envy.
Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I am taking no stand on his content. I could care less. I think it is dross and was more than ably fisked by KyleH. Whatever. YMMV.
The fact is that to post with that frequency on that variety of venues "Jim" was either a psychopath or a shill. Either way he is no more.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Thanks for the recap..wonderful job of summarizing..amazingly powerful quote about the danger of radical islam..