Fred Thompson for... WHAT ?!? Would he actually do it?
There are good men. There are great men.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let's slow down. Fred Thompson might not run for President. He has a history of teasing voters and he might to be up to the challenge. Remember, Fred Thompson has a great life: a primetime (literally) acting job, a young wife and a younger child, all the money he needs, and all the fame he might desire.
What do we have? I would argue, not much, and I'm sure most of us have read, at one point in our lives, a series of stories in which the situation looks gloomy, or even dire, until the dashing hero rides in to save the day. I have to admit that the notion of this hope still seems somewhat childlike to me, even after having lived through it. (Remember, the hero rode in at some point in 1976, and the 1980s were about him saving the day. I'll leave the name aside, as I don't want to appear to be making a comparison.)
Read More…
The AP's Erik Schelzig posits that Fred Thompson "isn't new to will-he-or-won't-he speculation about seeking public office." He documents times when Thompson seemed not to give a straight answer about his intentions: to seek the Presidency in 2000, to run for Tennessee governor in 2001, and to seek reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2002.
A. C. Kleinheider of WKRN-TV/NEWS 2 in Nashville wrote on Monday that Shelzig, whom he describes as a " just the facts ma'am reporter," uses his piece to "essentially implor[e] us to slow our roll," our hopes for an eventual Thompson run. He quotes from Schelzig's article (linked above):
Thompson, a movie and television actor before and after serving as a Republican senator from Tennessee, also was linked to a potential run for the 2000 presidential nomination. He waited until March 1999 to declare that he would not run because of his heavy Senate workload.
Thompson said later that he had "never been on the verge" of running for president despite all the speculation and that he was not interested in raising the millions of dollars necessary to be a legitimate contender.
Explaining in 1999 why he didn't shut down speculation sooner, Thompson said, "I saw no reason to foreclose my options."
Well, tonight I'd party like it's 1999 but for the fact that a lot has changed about Fred Thompson and the political universe since then. According to what's in Wikipedia, "[o]n June 29, 2002, Thompson married Jeri Kehn, a political media consultant at the Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, and McPherson law firm in Washington, D.C." Since then politically, President Bush has happened, the Iraq war has happened, and the lunatics have taken over the asylum in the Democratic Party. In 1999, the nation was going through Clinton-fatigue as our national security crumbled; now, we are much more secure but the nation is war weary, regaled by endless stores of quagmire, quagmire, Vietnam.
But Kleinheider, who reports from Tennessee and surely knows of Fred Thompson better than most of us do, has some additional thoughts for us to consider:
Running for President is a chore. It is a full time job for the candidate and the people around him. If Fred Thompson thinks he can just waltz into the race and be anointed the nominee, he'll do it.
But that isn't gonna happen. The current frontrunners have too much invested in this just to just lay down for a folksy manner and red pickup. They are gonna fight him tooth and nail and make him work for the honor of representing the party as the general election nominee.
[ . . .]
He has a history of this. He has a relatively new wife and two young children. He making money right now filling in for Paul Harvey and on Law and Order.This is not a young man. Yes, that means that this is likely his last chance at the glory. But it also means that, were he to run and win, the limited time he has left with his young children will be spent in CIA briefings, rose garden ceremony, and phone calls from Air Force One.
The argument is: Thompson is financially secure with a young family with whom he doubtlessly would like to spend time. He'll be 66 when he takes the Presidential Oath of Office. What is there to gain for him?
If we are going to speculate about Fred Thompson, vis-à-vis his family, what better legacy could he leave his children than a nation's admiration for their father, the President of the United States? Sure, after Thompson has passed, people will tell his children that he was a great actor and Senator, but surely Thompson can imagine his child's pride when she is told that he father was a great President. And if he's going to do this, Fred Thompson will have to be confident, certain that he will be a great President.
And there is also a genuine concern for one's country and its future. We saw that in our 40th President, and it seems Thompson is big-headed enough to believe that the country needs him. (In my estimation, need might be too strong a word, but perhaps not. But what I think is immaterial to this decision.) Our 40th President saw a higher calling. Who is to say that Fred Thompson does not? Perhaps all the turns his life has taken have been leading Thompson to this moment, and perhaps he knows it.
Bill Frist, blogging on Friday, relates:
I talked to Fred Thompson last night, really just to share with him the tremendous support that he has received from all of you who have blogged on the Volpac web site over the past 4 days. In your messages many of you have given specific suggestions, and I passed them on to him. If there are messages, or ideas that you'd like to get to Fred, write them below, to stimulate others with your ideas, and I will share them with Fred. Now is the time for big ideas ... big, true conservative ideas that rise above the fray. Fred is listening. He will carefully consider running over the next several weeks. His public statements exactly reflect what he is thinking inside.
Is it time to retrieve our decoder rings to parse Fred Thompson's daily utterances? No, I trust Thompson will be more straightforward than all that – thus Frist's choice of words: "exactly reflect."
This will take a lot of drive on Fred Thompson's part. He'll need to be driven like… okay, Ronald Reagan. The 1980 Republican nomination was not given to the man on a silver platter; Howard Baker, George Bush, Phil Crane, and Bob Dole all wanted the nomination. Reagan led in all the polls, as Thompson might should he enter, but the others fought a good fight. It wasn't handed to Reagan, and it won't be handed to Thompson.
Ronald Reagan was a great man. He could have served as darned good governor of California then turned to TV acting and been remembered as an actor who was governor, but he had more in store for him and he knew it. Fred Thompson was a darned good U.S. Senator from Tennessee, and he's turned to TV acting and will be remembered as an actor who was a Senator. Fred Thompson is a good man. The question now is, is Fred Thompson a great man, or is he content with being a good? He has to be certain he is a great man. He has to be brave enough to answer history's call, and he has a million reasons not to bother answering the phone.
The ball, as they say, is in Fred Thompson's court. If he shoots, he scores.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Michael Arcuri Caves to Pressure on Iraq Supplemental — Comments (1) »
Fred Thompson for... WHAT ?!? Would he actually do it? 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Your analysis illuminates some interesting comparisons to the other candidates. In none of the other cases does one get the feeling that running for the presidency is a hardship that is not greatly outweighed by the prize of winning.
For Thompson, if your post is accurate, one gets the feeling that should he run and win, it would be a burden and a sacrifice that he would make for the sake of his country - a higher calling as you noted.
Looking at the other candidates:
McCain is on a glory ride.
Rudy is simply driven to lead.
Mitt - not sure about his motivation, a bit too slick for me.
Brownback, Hunter are ideologues who have a vision about this country.
I am not trying to in any way demean the effort or dedication of those candidates who are running, or the obvious sacrifices they must make in that quest, BUT should they win, it will have all been worth it.
For Thompson, winning may be the biggest sacrifice. I don't believe he views himself to be a martyr, nor do I want to make him out to be one, but I'm sure he is wrestling with 'but will it be worth it' monster more than the others.
I hope he runs (for my own selfish reasons).
Thompson has it easier than any of the the Three Little Piggies.
McCain is not universally despised, but it's pretty close with the doctrinnaire thinkers in the party. One cannot continue to call oneself a conservative when all of your legislation was co-sponsored by the most liberal Dems.
Romney is not just unknown, but what is known is untrusted. When did he actually decided to be committed to pro-life? Is he actually pro-life? Lower taxes? Romney's record doesn't convince a lot of conservatives.
Giuliani is liberal on everything but terrorism. But he doesn't run from his record, kind of a this-is-me-warts-and-all. There is grudging admiration, but I think most of his success is anti-McCain, not pro-Rudy, at least with conservatives.
Thompson has none of that baggage. There are no questions about his true beliefs. Either he gets to write his own lines on Law and Order, or someone who knows him well writes them for him. The job is acting, his belief in justice is not. No one questions his sincerity on the War on Terror, abortion, low taxes, and so one. McCain-Feingold is the only hickey, but who among the three little piggies has fewer monkey bites?
Finally, he has something that hasn't been seen since that Great Unnamed. People trust him. That is a lot of currency. No one in either party has that right now. The Dems are destroying themselves, the Republicans are asking for new leaders. Thompson has the ability to actually point Democratic hypocricy without sounding hypoctical.
Thompson may agree with a lot of us that we need someone with his credentials to lead the Republican Party. Hopefully.
I imagine most of Thompson's votes in the Senate match those of his buddy McCain. I'm certain that this has already been pointed our numerous times, but it may be worth noting that he supported Campaign Finance Reform, aka McCain-Feingold:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/22/campaign.finance/...
Not everyone wants to be president, and not everyone who does want to be president is willing to make the sacrifices to become president. Much as I despise the charade of candidates painting themselves as reluctant or undecided, sometimes they really are, and the time to explore your doubts is now, before you get in.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
with this article about a conspiracy theory on the right. Frist's comment seems to contradict the story. I hope he's right.
When I first read that story, it kinda freaked me out too. But the more I think about it, the more I think Newsmax is a bit too involved in the Giuliani (and Romney???) campaigns. They trash McCain a lot and it sounds like they are trying to keep Thompson down as well.
on an outstanding post. I hope the mighty Fred is reading this and pondering the future.
the movie would have been called 1.
Feel free to join in!
Fred would walk away with the nomination, easily. If he sticks to the conservative philsophy of limited government and preaches it heavily on the campaign trail, he'll easily defeat the socialists... er, democrats. The guy is 62 years old (right?). Does he want to leave this earth being remembered for a short time as the guy who was on "Law and Order" or does he want to be remembered forever as a guy who brought America back to its roots? That is the question. Reagan lost in 1976, but he brought conservatism into the minds of the people and by 1980 the people had realized that liberalism didn't work. Even if Thompson loses in 2008, I think if he could bring conservatism back into people's minds and pave the way for someone like Mark Sanford or Mike Pence, then he will have made a lasting impact on the United States and on personal freedom.
We do need somebody in this race who has something that at least resembles Conservative credentials. After all, the "Big Three" each appear to have stronger leftist credentials than Conservative ones.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Unless republicans want to see Hillary Rodham Obama in the white house, we better start getting realistic about the current republican candidates.
Rudy Giuliani is a nice guy but FAR too liberal for the republican party. In fact, Rudy would make an excellent nominee for the democrats. And he would have a better chance of getting the nomination as a democrat as well. The simple truth is, at least one third of republican primary voters are evangelical christians. Evangelicals will NOT support a pro choice republican nominee. Period.
John McCain is a war hero, but its time for ole John to understand that conservatives don't like his policies or his personality. Maybe John could unite with Al Gore and make a sequel movie about global warming. Don't want to be too critical, but John McCain is showing his age.
Mitt Romney looks nice in front of the camera and answers all the questions perfectly. Thats part of his problem. This guy looks like he just got out of central casting...Mitt is FAR too scripted and lacks sincerity. And his flip flopping on abortion will end his campaign somewhere bewteen Iowa and New Hampshire.
Its time for the republicans to get a heavyweight conservative in the race. His name is Fred Thompson.
I don't know why, but my spider-sense is tingling about Fred Thompson. I can't find much wrong with him or his beliefs, so it's not that. Maybe it's his close association with McCain. I'm really not sure, but I just can't get excited about him at this point like so many of you are. I'm open to him running and convincing me, but I'm withholding judgment and support for him for now.
For the record, it is possible to overcome my spider-sense tingling with common sense conservatism. For example, I'm solidly a fan of Newt Gingrich, despite his negatives, because he's shown a genuine dedication to and belief in conservatism, as well as a proven track-record of leadership. I'd vote for Newt for president in a heartbeat.
I guess I just feel like Fred Thompson is coming out of nowhere, and the bandwagon is moving and filling up too fast for my comfort level. I may well jump on at some point if he runs, but not with so little to go on. I need to see and hear more from him. He doesn't have the track record of leadership I'm looking for this election, and I need more evidence that he can do it without direct experience as a high-level leader. Conservative beliefs are not enough if he hasn't a clue how to implement them.
If the only choice for the republican nomination was between Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich, I'd pick Thompson without reservations. Thompson's voting record in the senate was solidly conservative, whereas Newt's House leadership left something to be desired. Newt made one strategical mistake after another in his dealings with Bill Clinton, and ultimately house republicans gave up on him.
Fred Thompson's political views mirror Newt's, but without the baggage. And as far as Thompson's association with McCain, well, Thompson also had close associations with many other senators. And it was Fred Thompson who helped Justice Roberts during the nomination hearings.
Newt did make mistakes as a leader and therefore had a chance to analyze and learn from those mistakes--a chance that very few others have had. I believe he would be a better leader now as a result. That's my point about Fred Thompson. We have no idea how he'd do as a high-level leader, just like we had no idea in 1994 how Newt would do. We agreed whole-heartedly with his ideas, but he stumbled out of the gate when it came to the leadership part. He still managed to get a lot of important things done before he was thrown out with the bathwater, though, which says a lot about his potential. Fred has never been a high-level leader of that type. I guess I fear that an untested leader at this particular point in history would be a gamble that we can't afford to lose. If his fantastic ideas and beliefs fizzle because he doesn't know how to get things done, we as a nation will be in trouble.
Make no mistake, if Thompson wins the nomination, I will vote for him without hesitation. I'm not a stay-at-home-on-election-day puritan. I'm just not sure yet if I want to support Fred in the primaries (if he even runs). Like I said, I'm open to him (or anyone else) running and convincing me. I want him, or someone, to be the savior we have all been hoping for. I'm just moving cautiously at this point. We have time.
Fred is obviously electable. Bob Beckel says he's the Democrat's "worst nightmare".(pp) And he has a very solid Conservative record(he's NO McCain), with Conservative Groups giving his 8 years in the Senate scores ranging around 90 and liberal groups giving his years in the Senate scores from 0 to 5 or so. HIs positions stakes out on FOX News Sunday were also refreshingly UNEQUIVOCAL in their Convervatism - especially his common-sense(and highly supported by the American people) "Enforcement First" stand on illegal immigration reform.
So Thompson is both:
Verifiably Conservative AND Electable.
None of the "top three candidates" have, in the opinion of most Conservatives, both of these attributes. Rudy and McCain simply are not Conservative. Romney MAY be, but his record and past statements on the matter are not confidence-building, and wrong as it is, the Mormon issue probably will take enough votes away from him in the General Election to make him unelectable anyway.
Some of the "second-tier" candidates ARE Conservative(or Libertarian), but none of them have a real shot at beating Hillary or Obama in the General Election.
So none of the current announced candidates are BOTH verifiably Conservative AND Electable. None of them.
Fred Thompson, on the other hand, IS both verifiably Conservative AND electable. Which is the reason Conservatives are so excited about him.
Fred Thompson is "the guy". If only he would run... Let's hope he does - for the sake of the Conservative cause sure, but more importantly, for the sake of the nation in a critical time in history.
Is Fred Thompson "just another McCain"?
In a word, no. And I think this is very unfair to Mr. Thompson.
While it is true that Fred Thompson did vote with his friend McCain on Campaign Finance Reform, this is hardly the whole story. For one thing, Thompson just admitted to John Fund that the Campaign Finance Reform law obviously wasn't working as intended, and it may be time to just scrap all limits entirely and set up some kind of ultra-transparency standard instead. I don't think McCain would approve of such a notion.
Also, Thompson has always proven to be a true, ideaological, low taxes "Founding Fathers" type Conservative. McCain, of course, opposed the Bush tax cuts. I also can't imagine Thompson falling in line behind McCain on the "terrorist Bill of Rights" and interrogation issue. Nor can I imagine Thompson would be against driling in ANWR, or for the
"gang of 14 compromise" on judicial filibusters.
And, perhaps most importantly to most Americans, Thompson has stepped forward with a position completely contrary to McCain on immigration. Whereas McCain is for a "comprehensive" solution and what basically amounts to amnesty, Thompson has rejected this notion in favor of a far more sensical "enforcement first" approach. This is very
important, as immigration is an issue where the politicians in Washington have been completely unresponsive to the clear and overhwelming wishes of the vast majority of this country - liberals, conservatives and moderates alike.
The country overwhelmingly wants the illegal flow at the border stopped and the laws enforced. And the people are rightly suspicious about any "comprehensive" reform, because why should we think that any new border enforcement laws are going to be enforced when the old ones are ignored? Why should we believe this new "amnesty plus
enforcement" is going to be any different than 1986, when we got the amnesty part but the will was never mustered to deliver the enforcement side of the equation? And which only made the problem much worse?
About 70% of the country has expressed a desire for the just, common-sense "Enforcement First" approach to immigration reform. Let's stop the flow and prove that we can and will control our borders, and then turn our attention to what to do with those that are
here illegally. And guess what? I'll bet that if we really prove we can stop the flow of illegals at the border and go through with tough enforcement, that the people of this country at that point will be far more open to ideas such as amnesty(or close to it) for those that remain. But we must prove that this is it - we will control our borders and our sovereignty.
Five years after 9/11 should we expect anything less?
Both McCain and Giuliani are shaky "comprehensive reform" guys. Thompson has chosen to stand with the people on this issue. He's chosen to stand with common-sense and the rule of law. This has, unfortunately, been a courageous and refreshing stand from a Presidential Candidate(who can win) on this issue in this day and age.
So I don't think that lumping him in with McCain is the way that the people should reward Mr. Thompson for his frankness and courage.
He deserves better.
You say, "I also can't imagine Thompson falling in line behind McCain on the "terrorist Bill of Rights" and interrogation issue." I actually am able to imagine Thompson voting for something that 90 or more senators voted for and Bush signed. But then I have a wild imagination.
Also where is your source that 70% of Americans only want enforcement before they will consider "amnesty". The polls I saw on pollingreport.com indicated that that about
60 % of Americans are in favor of a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants.
Read my comments below - and the poll results I provide at the bottom of this thread to answer your question.
In poll after poll, the American people, as I show, favor an Enforcement first approach. It is true, in some polls, the people do indicate that they are in favor of a path to legalization, etc. However, when people answer these polls in that way they are answering with the understanding that the borders will be controlled also. The polls I quote below prove this.
And when polled as a choice between closing the border and a path to legalization, the American people always overwhelmingly choose closing the border - by 2 to 1. They also, by 2 to 1, about 70% across several polls, indicate that we shouldn't even consider any "path to legalization" or other new laws until we enforce our borders first. Like i said.
Of course, as we know, if we do the "comprehensive" thing at the same time, the borders will never be enforced. We'll just get the amnesty part without the enforcement part. How do we know this? Common sense. And the fact that the exact same thing happened before in 1986. Do the easy part before the hard part and see if the hard part gets done... never.
Look at any poll you want, the majority of Americans oppose amnesty. Why do you think Bush continues to claim his amnesty program isn't amnesty ? Because if he admitted the truth, his plan wouldn't see the light of day.
so if the polls asked people if they were in favor of Amnesty they would say no. However the polls I have seen seem to show that the american people are in favor of a path to legalization for Illegal immigrants- this is what many of you call amnesty. Apperently the American people have a different definition of amnesty than what the blogosphere does.
A F
So do what then? Tom Terrific and the Fortress America crowd does not like nor do they put on the table any plan that addresses 12+ Million illegal aliens already here, short of go home and then we'll think about letting you back in.
Using the same challenge that Republicans have given to the Democrats on the issue of the war in Iraq; Fortress America folks, what is your plan, where is your proposed legislation to deal with the issue? Everyone gets it that you anything that even remotely smells like amnesty makes you crazy, but the rest of us are getting mad and even crazier over elected officals who are doing nothing but talking at each other while those of us out in fly over country wait for something to be done about this issue and our local communities go broke.
McCain and Brownback just got told in Iowa, Lead...Follow...or get out of the way on the issue of illegal immigration. Right now McCain nor Brownback is doing neither on this issue, nor as far as I can tell is anyone who stands a chance of getting elected addressing this issue.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
"So do what then? Tom Terrific and the Fortress America crowd does not like nor do they put on the table any plan that addresses 12+ Million illegal aliens already here, short of go home and then we'll think about letting you back in."
Not true. There are many things we can do.
But first and foremost, there is one fundamental thing that *must* be done in order to solve this problem, and that is stopping the illegal flow at the border. Proving we can protect our own sovereignty and not let just anybody wander in here whenever they want and without knowing who they are or what they intend to do.
If you don't do that first, then what is the point of the rest of it? If people can continue to come in illegally whenever they please, then anything else you are doing is just a waste of time. Stop the flow first, control the border, and then, only from there, can you talk about solutions to those already here.
And here are those solutions:
1. Enforce the law. Companies are not supposed to hire illegals. Many do anyway, and knowingly. A few have been raided recently, in faux shows of force by the Bush administration to soften the public up for the amnesty bill by making us think enforcement is really going on. But guess what happened in those places that got raided and wiped out of their illegal work force? The companies then went out, raised wages, and hired Americans. By the truckloads. Yup - some Americans got those "jobs that Americans won't do". Proving that that line is utter nonsense.
But enforce the law. Crack down hard. We already have ways for businesses to know if a person is legal or not. When we find businesses knowingly hire illegals, come down hard on them. The result will be that the labor opportunities for illegals will dry up. Americans will then get those jobs, and illegals, with no further options here, will largely self-deport. They'll go back home where they can work, and perhaps get in line to come in legally later.
If you just do these two things - control the border, and enforce the law as far as businesses go, the vast majority of this problem goes away very quickly. And controlling the border will be much easier then, as well, as people won't be clamoring to get over here if they can't come in and work. There'll be far less people trying to get in.
After that has all played out, you can then discuss amnesty or whatever you want for the illegals that are still here, but I doubt there'll be very many at that point.
Control the border, enforce the law. Two easy, common-sense, and fair steps, in line with our existing laws, that would basically solve this entire problem almost overnight.
That's what you do. It's that simple.
A good start, but you ignore what to do with the 12+ Million illegals already here. I would encourage you to go listen to a Utube copy of what Senator Thompson has to say on that very point. He mostly agrees with you, but also admits that there are 12+ Million reasons why something has to be done about those already here.
Right now, there are only two guys, who are not running for President by the way, who are making sense.
1) Newt
2) Fred Thompson
Tom Terrific and the hardliners are so hung up on the enforcement side that they never seem to get around to talking about the elephant in the room, the 12+ Million illegals and their children who may or may not be US citizens in this country right now.
I'm actually very angry at the President on this issue due to his lack of using the powers of his office to do something, anything about illegal immigration right now.
Simple stuff like:
A simple Presidential order to the Social Security Administration to turn over to ICE a list of business with a statically high number of "unmatched" SSNs would do wonders.
A Presidential order to start cutting off to the greatest extent possible all funding from DHS for any city that declares itself a "sanctuary" city.
A Presidential order to DHS to start putting ICE agents in every major metropolitan jails to start screening for illegal aliens already locked up.
The heck with waiting on Congress to get it's act together, start acting now! What's the worst thing that can happen if President Bush actually did something, his approval rating goes lower with the open border types?
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
I agree with your ideas about Presidential power here.
But I must disagree in your claim that I didn't reference what we do with the 12+ million illegals already here.
I certainly did.
Like I said, if you enforce the laws with employers in a serious way, illegals will not be able to get many jobs here at all. This doesn't only go for new people coming in - this also goes for illegals already here working in our factories, plants, and farms. They would have to be let go, and they would have no hope of finding a new job - or little hope of one.
With our employer laws actually being enforced, I believe the vast majority of those already here will "self-deport" because their ability to get jobs here will mostly dry up.
So stop the flow at the border, crackdown on employers, and not only will you have nobody else coming in, and much less even trying to come in, but most of those already here will simply leave - they'll go back home to a place where they CAN get a job, or at least get in line to immigrate here legally, which is fine.
Once we've done these two simple things, and let it shake out - then lets see how many illegals remain here. I'll bet it will be far fewer than are here now. And then we'll decide what to do with them.
But doing those two thigns will mostly solve the problem - and it won't take any "mass deportations" to do it, either.
Children of illegals born here? Are you ready for a challenge all the way to the Supreme Court on this issue, and what that challenge will do to the party that seeks to deign citizenship rights to children of illegals who were born in this country? While I disagree with the premise that they should automatically be citizens based on birth from a parent who is here illegally, the reality is that politically it would be a nightmare to prosecute these children and a nightmare to break up families.
That 12+ Million estimate is probably very low, it's more like 25 Million counting children. You have stated no real plan for dealing with the elephant in the room, and pretending that only a crack down on hiring and employers will drive illegals back to where they came from is a non-starter.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
enWoah woah woah...
I never said that citizenship rights to children of illegals should be revoked. Never. So I'm not sure where you got that. I personally think that the automatic citezenship is an antiquated feature of the Constitution not connected with any real governmental philosophy, and so there's certainly room to change that at some point. But I never made that part of my calculus here.
And why is it a "non starter" to say that crackdown on illegal employment will drive illegals back to where they came from? Of course it would. The primary reason they come here is work, after all. If they can't find any work in this country for themselves and to send money to their families back home(which is now Mexico's largest section of their economy), and are inelligible for welfare or other public benefits, what on earth would they DO here?
They would have to leave, becaue they only way they could exist would be through crime and private charity, and they would want to leave, because the main reason they came here would be gone.
Attacking the main cause of a problem is usually the first thing one tries to do when solving it - so I don't know why you'd cast that here as a "non-starter".
The fact is this - a huge number of illegals, certainly a majority, would have no choice but to go back home if we removed the ability for them to find employment in this country. And yes, I'm sure they'll take their families with them. I never said it would get them all out, but it would turn the problem from the mammoth proportions it is now to a much more manageable number - certainly under five million, I'd think, and maybe even less.
At that point, we'll see what we're actually left to deal with after we've simly enforced our laws at the border and with employers. Whatever is left we will then have to come up with solutions for - but why come up with solutions now before we even know how many we'd be dealing with at the point AFTER we actually started enforcing our laws?
Shouldn't we just enforce the laws first, then see how many remain and what their status in this country is, and then decide on what to do? I guarantee you at that point things like amnesties and "legal pathways to citizenship" will be a far easier sell to the American people than they would be before we even try enforcing our laws as a means of dealing with the problem.
As far as the kids go, the enforcing the law idea doesn't change anything. The kid may be a legal citizen, but if their parents are not, the parents are certainly going to move back home so they can find work. People move from one place to another and even one country to another to find work all the time, regardless of their citizenship status. Just as a native Indian with Indian citizenship might move his family to the United States to find work where he can't find it at home, the Mexican illegal who can't find work in the United States because of his illegal status will move his family to Mexico to find work there - children and all. That they are citizens of the U.S. is irrelevant. No U.S. citizen has the "right" to be provided a job, and they have the option of moving to find one if needs be.
I don't see why this should be any different.
The facts are, in the initial "let's just enforce our old laws and see how they work" phase, there is no need to even adress the issue of the citizenship status of children. It isn't relevant.
Once the enforcing of our laws at the border and with employers shakes out, and we see how many are left here and what the problem actually is, then we can discuss if the citizenship of children still here should weigh in whatever solutions we come up with.
But the issue remains simple - Enforcement First. Enforce the border and enforce our laws. Let it shake out. See how many go back to Mexico on their own because they can no longer find work here. THEN and only then take an accounting the remaining problem and come up with a solution at that point.
By why a "solution" to a problem that we can't even quantify until we actually enforce our laws on the books and see how big the problem really is?
Sorry, no intent to put words into your statements, just pointing out that this is a tough issue with few easy answers. A real dialog on the issue is important, and the folks that seem to motivated by pure anger seem to not want to actually admit how hard a problem this truly is.
Simple solutions, like just fortify the border sound good, and make some people feel secure, but there are a bunch of 'gotya's that simple solutions gloss over. Newt, Thompson and few others are talking about these hard issues, I keep hoping the rest of the field start talking about the real hard parts of the problem and knock off with the cheap sound bites.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Again, I can't disagree with this... to an extent.
The extent is that I feel some of the cheap soundbites have been "earned" somewhat by years of neglect on what should have been an easy problem that we let get out of control.
And I do think the "easy answers" crowd has a point - let's enforce the laws we already have on the books now, and THEN see where we are in terms of this problem. It makes no sense to prescribe solutions based on conditions that we can't know at this time - we can't know those conditions until we really pull the trigger and enforcement and see what happens.
After that, we can clean up the tougher issues and get in there and deal with them.
But as the polls I quoted show, by a 2 to 1 margin, the American people are only interested in talking about other solutions to these problems after we've enforced the laws already on the books.
Surely we owe them that at least - after all, what good will all these new laws we're talking about be if we never even followed the old ones? Seems like a waste of time without enforcement first.
I'd be interested to see this polling data you describe, as it differs from what I've seen for the past decade.
CBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006. N=636 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
.
"Would you favor or oppose allowing illegal immigrants who have done the following to stay and work in the United States: paid a fine, been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes they owe, can speak English, and have no criminal record?"
.
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
5/16-17/06 77 19 4
This is an example, I think I saw 6 polls with people in favor of a path for legalization to illegals that meet a certain standard. The people in favor ranged from 59% - 67% You can look for yourself at: http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm People are also strongly pro enforcement, I am just saying that you can’t say enforcement is the only immigration issue people have an opinion on.
The poll formatting got messed up when I pasted itCBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006. N=636 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
"Would you favor or oppose allowing illegal immigrants who have done the following to stay and work in the United States: paid a fine, been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes they owe, can speak English, and have no criminal record?"
.
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
5/16-17/06 77 19 4
.
Favorable numbers like the ones you propose are all predicated on the idea that we will stop the flow at the border along with these other ideas.
Like I said in my original post, most Americans are fed up and just want us to turn off the spigot. If we actually did this, then most Americans would be very happy to discuss anything - even up to amnesty, I'd bet - in terms of dealing with the illegals already here. But if we don't really enforce the border and stop the flow, then I guarantee you none of the polls you site would hold up - those people are answering those questions with the idea that stopping the flow is part of the deal.
Unfortunately, as we all know, unless we stop the flow FIRST, it just won't happen. That's what takes the most will. If we roll it into a "comprehensive" package, then we'll get the amnesty nonsense right away but will never get the enforcement. That's exactly what happened in 1986. Are we stupid enough to get fooled again? I hope not. ANYTHING we do should only follow PROOF that we can now control our own sovereignty by enforcing the rule of law and our borders.
If we can't show that we can do that, then most of America is not going to accept anything else on the table.
They are tired of, five years after 9/11, us leaving the border open to let just anybody wander across as they please - be it a Mexican worker or a terrorist carrying a dirty bomb. Just in the Pheonix section of the border alone - just that small point, there's about 5,000 illegals per day coming through. We only catch about 25%. Even the ones we catch, we just send back over the border and let go. They'll just try again the next day and the day after that. Odds are, they make it in on the first try, but certainly by the second or third.
This is obviously terrible policy for a host of reasons, and the results are a flood of illegal immigrants in the country filling our jails, causing emergency rooms to close down(11 in Southern California recently), running drugs, etc. I live in a town that has grown from 29,000 people in 1990 to 65,000 today - from 45,000 to 65,000 just between 2000 to 2005! Almost all illegal immigrants.
And the town has been turned upside down. Crime was a foreign thing here before, now it's becoming a major problem. We've had shooting murders, which we'd never really had before, including drive-by shootings. I've personally witnessed a clearly drunk driver hit a car with a family in it. I had the license plate of the drunk because he was in front of me, so I flagged down the family and told them i'd call the police for them. They were illegal immigrants who barely spoke any English. I called the police anyway because they couldn't tell me not to. The police called me back and said the family didn't want to pursue the matter, even though a drunk driver had just slammed into their car, because they were illegal and scared. So a drunk driver gets off free to roam the streets and plow into whoever else he wants.
And this goes on and on and on.
The biggest problem is this - there are so many illegals coming in so quickly that it is impossible to assimilate them into our culture. They don't need to assimilate! They have so many here, they just retain their own culture, language, etc. They have Spanish businesses and community centers. Even English speaking businesses put everything in Spanish as well to cater to them. They have their own insulated community - they are not being forced to become Americans. They are just remaining Mexicans who just happen to live, illegally, in this country, not paying taxes, and sending much of the money they make here back across the border.
We need to stop the bleeding at the border - that's the hard part - and then deal with who is here, which will be the easy part once the hard part is done. Since we've been fooled before, there's no reason to accept another deal like the first one. This time, Washington will have to prove that they will stop the flow at the border now before asking us for anything else.
And the plan Bush wants would be disastrous for this country - 80 million new immigrants in the next ten years? We can't assimilate the 12 - 20 million here now, which are turning communiies upside down. 80 million new imported poor workers from a socialist country? Businesses that support this for cheap labor just aren't thinking very long-term. Import 80 million new Democrat voters, and Conservatism is done for in this country - for good. And that means that we'll have high regulation and European style socialism on our hands from then on. Not good for business.
Cheap labor now - disaster later. Businesses, and anybody that wants to preserve this, one of the last Western places on earth free of European style socialism, better wake up before they ruin it all by supporting a bunch of law breakers and not enforcing our own rule of law.
You bring out many good points. Unfortunately, the only points that seem to count in DC are the ones on the politicians heads.
The following bits show that what I said was true - people want Enforcement First. Any other solutions, like the polls you mention, come only on the understanding that the borders will be controlled. In other words, when people are answering poll questions like the ones quoted above seeming to favor "comprehensive", they favor those measures only on the assumption that enforcement at the border has already occured. Like I said, the American people will be willing to do just about anything with those here, even amnesty, if we can really prove that we have stopped the bleeding at the border once and for all...
"A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach."
"However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.
In our survey, we informed respondents that there are 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States and that more than half have lived here for more than five years. Upon hearing those facts, 40% favored forcibly requiring all 11 million to leave the United States. Just 44% are opposed to a forcible removal of illegal aliens."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Immigration%20March...
"A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies."
"On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here."
"When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea."
Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea."
"When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations; while 56 percent want the House approach.
But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent version to 30 percent."
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
"An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 59 percent oppose allowing illegal aliens to apply for legal or temporary status."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060327-091534-8115r.htm
Where FredHeads keep up to date.
Fred will run because he thinks it is the best thing for the country. I don't see him jump into the race until July 4th 2007. Let the field scrapple and squirm while Fred! makes cohesive 1 hour speeches the kit on the right nerves.
he shatters the glass, and walks away with the rim. IMHO
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln