Fred Thompson on the Issues
from this morning's FOX NEWS SUNDAY with Chris Wallace
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATE: Here, via Hot Air [x], is a YouTube clip of Fred Thompson on the issues on FOX News Sunday. The transcript of this part of the interview is reproduced below.
**********
Former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) told FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace this morning that he is "[g]oing to leave the door open" to a possible Presidential run [transcript].
I'm concerned about what's going on in the country, in our world, always have been. Just the fact that I left the Senate did not negate that in any way. I've been involved in national security issues and things of that nature since I've been out of the Senate.
I think we're going into one of the most perilous times that our country has been in. I think that there are great opportunities out there.
He sees "great opportunities" in our future, but where does he stand on the issues? The portion of the transcript with his answers to Wallace's "lightning round" questions is below the fold, but it looks pretty good. He gives some specifics and explanations, and others would have to come, but some conservatives might be about to find their man for 2008.
(Read More for the transcript)
From the transcript:
WALLACE: [L]et's do a lightning round — quick questions, quick answers, a variety of issues — to see where Fred Thompson stands.
THOMPSON: Um hmm.
WALLACE: Abortion.
THOMPSON: Pro-life.
WALLACE: Would you like to overturn Roe. ...
THOMPSON: You said lightning round, now. If you want ...
WALLACE: Well, let's go.
THOMPSON: ... more, give me another question. I'll work through it.
WALLACE: Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years.
We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong.
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody.
And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You're against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there's real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that's what's happened in a lot of these areas.
WALLACE: Gun control.
THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.
WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?
THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.
WALLACE: On the other hand, you have taken some stands that conservatives may not like. For instance, you voted for John McCain's campaign finance reform.
THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.
I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing.
So that's not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.
WALLACE: You also favor comprehensive immigration reform. I want to...
THOMPSON: No, no, no, no.
WALLACE: Well, let me put up on the screen something that you said last year about illegals, and let's take a look at it. "You're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."
Now, you said, "Look, it's just not realistic that we're going to round up 12 million people and ship them all out of the country."
THOMPSON: Well, that's true, as a general statement. We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with.
I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.
I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things — certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.
But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.
You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen.
WALLACE: What would you do now in Iraq?
THOMPSON: I would do essentially what the president's doing. I know it's not popular right now, but I think we have to look down the road and consider the consequences of where we are.
We're the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve and see what we're willing to do in resolving the situation that we have there. People think that if we hadn't gone down there, things would have been lovely.
If Saddam Hussein was still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than what they are today.
We've got to rectify the mistakes that we've made. We went in there too light, wrong rules of engagement, wrong strategy, placed too much emphasis on just holding things in place while we built up the Iraqi army, took longer than we figured.
Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now. We're coming in with good people. We're coming in with a lot of different people. I know General Petraeus from when he was in Tennessee at Fort Campbell. He believes in the plan. He's convinced me that they can do the job.
Why would we not take any chance, even though there's certainly no guarantees, to not be run out of that place? I mean, we've got to take that opportunity and give it a chance to work.
WALLACE: One area where you have been critical of President Bush is that you say that he never spread the burden, he never made all Americans share in the sacrifice.
And you have talked about the fact that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil. Would you impose a gas tax to push us in that direction?
THOMPSON: Well, you're getting a little bit further down in the weeds than I want to go right now. I don't know. I'm studying it. I don't know the answer to that question.
We're going to have to do some things differently. We're going to have to think differently about solutions.
You know, it's a price matter more than anything else. You know, gas is — I mean, oil is fungible. And there's going to be oil in different parts of the world having a price set, you know, that we're going to have to live with one way or another.
We can't ever be totally independent of it, but we can do some things to make it a lot better. We're going to have to look at fuel emission standards and things of that nature, things that we don't like to look at.
And things have got to be on the table, because we can't keep funding a part of the world that's causing us so much problems.
WALLACE: You are on the steering committee of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund.
THOMPSON: That's right.
WALLACE: And you helped raise millions of dollars for his extraordinary legal expenses. Would President Thompson — you like the sound of that probably. Would President Thompson pardon Libby now or would you wait until all of his legal appeals are exhausted?
THOMPSON: I'd do it now.
WALLACE: Because?
THOMPSON: I'd do it now. This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice.
One man and his wife and 14-year-old and 10-year-old children are bearing the brunt of a political maelstrom here that produced something that never should have come about.
These people knew in the very beginning — the Justice Department, this Justice Department and the special counsel knew in the very beginning that the thing that was creating the controversy, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, did not constitute a violation of the law.
And then they knew that it — someone did leak the name. And it was Mr. Armitage. It wasn't Scooter Libby.
But he evidently wasn't a designated bad guy, so they passed over that and spent the next year drilling in a dry well and finally got some inconsistencies or some failure to remember out of Mr. Libby and made a prosecution out of it and went to trial on a he-said, she-said perjury case and faulty memory, when practically every witness in the trial either had inconsistent statements, told the FBI one thing, told the grand jury something else, inconsistent between the witnesses that were presented at the case, and sometimes both.
And yet at the end of the day, the only person that the jury got an opportunity to pass judgment on was Scooter Libby. It's not fair. And I would do anything that I could to alleviate that.
He called being compared to Ronald Reagan, a "no-win situatio[n]."
We've got an entitlement program that's bankrupting us. We've got things going on in Thailand, in Indonesia, in places that nobody ever talks about anymore that could impact on us.
We've got Chinese government who we're mutually economically dependent upon right now. But you know, they're still a totalitarian government that is building up their military tremendously and has 200 missiles pointed toward Taiwan.
Those are all things that are going to have to be dealt with. And the American people, we've learned, are going to have to be brought along with the process and with what's going on — be honest with them and inspire them to do the right thing.
There was no polish put on his presentation but that which comes naturally to him. I don't fawn, but Fred Thompson was refreshing this morning and I'm anxious to see where this leads.
*****
UPDATE: Here, via Hot Air [x], is a YouTube clip of Fred Thompson discussing Scooter Libby on FOX News Sunday.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | LA-SEN: New Poll Shows Landrieu (D) Would Be Destroyed by Jindal (R) — Comments (18) »
Fred Thompson on the Issues 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
the one about Thompson's lack of charisma -- and she answered me honestly: "He must be thinking of somebody else." Seriously, if you watch Thompson speak, you'll see his tremendous charisma. And he's supposedly an awesome physical presence, as well. Giuliani, I think, comes off as somewhat pugnacious and combative, while Thompson has all the charisma of a Hollywood actor.
If Rudy puts New York and California in play, which I doubt even he could do, it will be because of his positions on abortion and other social issues, not his charisma. Thompson could put California in play, I suppose.
I could endorse Thompson with vigor, but right now, Rudy hasn't done it for me. Thompson might have negatives, but a lack of charisma is definitely not one of them.
maybe some of the vitriol from the other side will be contained, at least outside of Thompson's earshot. Nobody with any sense will insult him to his face.
From:
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With Bridget Marks, Lorrie Morgan
July 5, 2004
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/05/lkl.00.html
excerpt:
KING: Didn't you also go out with Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee?
MORGAN: Yes, I did.
KING: Who now is the star of Law & Order?
MORGAN: Yes, he is.
KING: Fun guy. Lifetime bachelor.
MORGAN: Yes. Well, no he's married.
KING: Now he's married?
MORGAN: Now he's married. And has, I think, a little girl.
KING: Nice guy.
MORGAN: Very nice guy. Very down-to-earth. And just a great guy. One to be proud to call a friend.
Watch Law and Order. On camera, this guy commands attention even as he 'debates' the issues. And I'd swear he must write some of his own stuff, like on one epsiode where DA Branch took a shot at Sandra Day O'Connor.
Run like Reagan!
I agree. Thompson is recognizable to the public. He'd have an advantage being familiar and he is someone I could get excited about. Too bad he couldn't have tested the waters at CPAC in the straw poll.
If he decides to run I would support him.He has solid conservative credentials.Not sure if he could pull enough votes out of the north and midwest to win.The intriguing aspect to Rudi's campaign that I like is that he would put into play a number of key blue states. Maybe a Rudi-Fred team would be optimum ?
The mayoral race was a different story for many reasons. Don't be fooled into thinking that Rudy will take NY or any of the other big blue states. Right now, most people only know one thing about Rudy (9/11). If Bush's term had ended in January of 2002, he too would be beloved by most right now. But, once the press starts in on Rudy and the country get's a load of the 9/10 Rudy, his appeal to moderates and liberals will vanish. Remember, he was losing to Hillary in the Senate Race before he pulled out (nothwistanding her being a carpetbagger, the Bill baggage, her inexpericen, etc.).
And, with all due respect, compairing Fred Thompson to Bob Dole in the charisma department is crazy. Thompson's got loads of charisma. This is a man who in his first race for public office, beat a 5-term congressman with the biggest landslide in Tennessee history.
...I think there are some blue states he puts into play. Probably not any of the big ones, as you say. (Also, I remember it differently about the polls in the potential Senate matchup before he dropped out...I recall them being very, very close).
Michael Barone did a great state-by-state analysis on a potential Rudy v. Hillary matchup. And his analysis basically echoed my own thoughts -- and that is that there are some less conservative states out there that would come into play with Giuliani on the ballot against Hillary Clinton.
I remember seeing a few state polls a few weeks ago, and Hillary was way ahead of Rudy in New York and California. However, Rudy easily beat Hillary in New Jersey, which I found surprising. I don't know if this is still the case, but I don't see Fred Thompson winning New Jersey.
Nationally, Hillary does about as well against Rudy as against Fred Thomspson. However, both are still in the 40 percent range. But the national polls don't tell us much.
I think it says a lot about Fred Thompson that he can do as well as he can in the Republican primary polls given that just over half of Republican primary voters even recognize his name. More Republican primary voters actually knew who Mitt Romney was.
He could never win against a Hillary or Obama.
Fred Thompson has the best chance out of the Republican field to win.
He lacks the baggage and skeletons that all the other canidates have to drag him down.
He is well spoken and completely comfortable in front of the camera. When asked questions his answers come across as answers, not the mealy mouth jargon we normally hear from politicians.
I can see how he can very easily be compared to President Reagan.
His statement on Iraq shows his character. He talks bluntly about a position that is difficult and unpopular. All the others are talking out the sides of their mouths, trying to make their positions sound popular. Mr Thompson didn't. He is what is he, and for those of us that are "hawks" or conservatives this man is our best bet.
They are friends, and they share the same view on most of the issues. Age and personal styles are the only differences that I see. They are fairly identical on the issues and voting records.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
that will show me how the voting record of Thompson is greatly different from the voting record of McCain? I will agree with you on style and personal appeal they are different. All I am saying is that when it comes down to votes they appear to be very identical to one another.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Your statement qualifies as the dumbest I've seen in some time. Fred Thompson, at 6-6 by the way, who would dwarf any other candidate he faces. He has presence, likability, and most importantly believability. Rudy McRomney is a farce compared to him. As for Hillary, she would look shrill, petty, and small in comparison to him. What a dumb, damn comment to make.
Please stop....you're killing me.
Thompson v. Hillary or Obama Thompson by a landslide
Rudy v. Hillary Rudy by 1.5 million votes
Rudy v. Obama Rudy by Not even close
As long as the dems run on the surrender platform, they don't stand a chance against a ham sandwich.
Thanks for the laugh....I needed that!
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
As long as the dems run on the surrender platform, they don't stand a chance against a ham sandwich.
Just like in November 2006?
Run like Reagan!
At least, not in any way that your squishy so-called Independents and Moderates could obviously pick up on.
That is one way in which 2008 will be different from 2006 across-the-board: the Dems will not be able to deny anymore that they are The Surrender Party.
(Which will be even more clear when some of them start calling for an Afghanistan pullout, roundabout Jan. 2008 or so...)
Hillary has huge negatives and most polls show her losing against most any of the major republican candidates.Now Obama might give the dem's a much better shot at the White House but his major problem is zero chief executive experience.
in the race and it's not a bad strategy. Judging from the Fox interview, he has flipped on the abortion issue and that gives him an issue profile that should be as good as either Romney or McCain and better than Giuliani ...
Except for the matter of who would be the best leader in the war on terror, where Giuliani should enjoy his #1 position from start to finish.
Let's see if Thompson gets in and if he can start to gain traction, both against McCain and Romney, and in potential matchups against the Democrats. However, McCain and Giuliani (especially Giuliani) look much more effective at attracting independents and putting blus states into play. The electability issue is the biggest question when it comes to Thompson.
At the very least, with his flip on abortion, Thompson becomes veep bait. But he also has a divorce, and I have no idea whether there are personal issues for Thompson as well.
pro-choice at one point. did not speak in favor of the woman's right to choose with the passion and conviction of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney (1994 version. And despite what he might have said, Thompson earned praise from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee.
I'm not here indicating one over the other, but equating Thompson and Romney is disingenuous. And it would never hold up to anyone's scrutiny.
that he, too, would choose the right path over the politically expedient short-term path. I think I misheard him originally but it occurred to me, where would we be now if Saddam and sons were still in power while Iran was also publicly pursuing a nuclear program? We'd have a much more likely nuclear war scenario.
if Fred Thomposon jumped in, he'd be my #1 immieadiately.
Not that I have any heartburn over Romney, I just like the way Thompson says things and we don't have to worry (either internally or in campaign commercials) about "flip flopping."
If not, I'm fine with Romney.
Guiliani has been my #2 for a while and I'd still vote for him over Democrats, but I'm getting a bit of a quesy feeling about Rudy.
Thompson and Romney, I feel good about.
I'd be interested in hearing about Thompson from a Tennessee native. Why did he quit the Senate in the first place? I don't recall any scandals. I'm a little hesitant to trust somebody who burnt out on politics if that was the case. The next candidate/Prez has to be one tough and resilient leader.
His daughter died and he decided to leave the Senate and take care of matters at home, as I recall.
Many would say it's another conservative value to rank your priorities beginning with God, family and country, in that order. I haven't heard that directly from anyone under 70 years old but I'm sure many Americans still believe it.
and as I recall he was mostly all right when he was in the Senate. What exactly is his election slogan? Is it “I replaced Al Gore in the Senate, but I am not Al Gore”?
Does Fred Thompson have some vast army of loyalists that no one has ever noticed before? How did he suddenly supposedly become a major player in the GOP, when he has lately been “that funny guy who is in Law & Order“?
Fred is probably making more on Law & Order than he would if he even managed to win, and he almost certainly would have a better time acting than being the guy saddled with all the woes that the next President will inherit.
sl
I would vigorously support him, otherwise, the mayor and the rest of the field of all-so-rans can just keep yammering.
My wife saw him on Fox and said, 'he sounds like Reagan ... and acts like a leader.'
Run Fred, I would pay to see the debate of his 6'6" frame standing next to the pipsqueak shrillery one.
The Presidency, with all of today's 24/7 news, has become as much performance art as it is anything else. One of the reasons Bush is taking such a bashing by the media.
You are the first person I have read at RS to acknowledge their support for Thompson because of his looks and performance style. It's good to be be honest with your analysis. The folks who like Thompson because they hate McCain's votes and positions on the issues need to reexamine.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
And read the transcript of Thompson's interview.
Did you see FDT opposing Bush's tax cuts? Did FDT ever echo liberals by saying things like "I just thought [Bush's tax cut] was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do. . . . We have a wealth gap in this country, and that worries me."
Do you see FDT supporting the current McKennedy immigration bill?
Has FDT ever called social conservatives "intolerant" or generally disrepected conservatives as McCain has?
Was FDT part of the Gang of 14? Did he ever help to kill a Bush appointment to the bench like McCain did with Haynes?
Do you have any evidence that FDT has swallowed the Global Warming Kool-Aid like McCain has?
And though you might discount it, personality (and character) is a major factor. In many ways McCain is a great man, but he' also got one of the shortest fuses in American politics and is generally a mediocre communicator. Sorry, but those things matter. (See, Reagan, Ronald W.)
In fact I was complimentary in my post for 10snooker's considerations being based on personality. Words spoken by a person mean less to me than the voting record of the person. Here is a link to post I made earlier with links to the voting records of Thompson and McCain:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/dahmich/2007/mar/10/fred_thompson_fuels_sp...
If words are an important consideration for you consider these words:
"...a Fred Thompson presidency is not beyond the realm of possibility. The greatest obstacle, in fact, to such a reality, is seen to be his close friendship with Senator John McCain. According to a quote in that Spectator article:
"He's not going to do it, we've been assured of that," says one John McCain adviser in Washington. "Senator McCain thinks the world of Fred Thompson. They are friends. They've talked."
McCain and Thompson are close friends. Had Thompson stayed in the Senate he quite possibly would have sided with McCain on several of the issues you raise. We'll never know for sure.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
This guy is a true conservative. A sucessful prosecutor in the AG's Office, Minority Counsel for the Watergate Investigation, two-term Senator, and the recent sherpa for CJ Roberts's confirmation process, this is a guy of gravitas. And, his voting record demonstrates a lon-standing comitment to the positions he articulated this morning.
--Voted Yes on use of military force against Iraq.
--Voted Yes on killing an increase to the minimum wage.
--Voted No on adopting Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
--Voted Yes on deploying "Star Wars" missile defense shield.
--Voted No on banning chemical weapons.
--Voted Yes on oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Preserve
--Voted Yes on terminating CAFÉ fuel efficiency standards.
--Voted Yes on defunding renewable and solar energy.
--Voted Yes on banning military base abortions.
--Voted Yes on banning so-called "partial birth" abortions.
--Voted No on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
--Voted No on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
--Voted No on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities and women.
--Voted Yes on constitutional Amendment banning flag burning.
--Voted Yes on limiting product liability punitive damage awards.
--Voted Yes on restricting class-action lawsuits.
--Voted Yes on school vouchers.
--Voted No on background checks at gun shows.
--Voted Yes on selling guns without trigger locks
--Voted No on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada
--Voted No on allowing patients to sue HMOs and collect punitive damages.
--Voted Yes on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress.
--Voted No on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
In short, this is a guy that can unite and rally the base and win a general election.
The voting record was taken from a lefty site that was explaining why he shouldn't get elected. Two points: (i) I forgot to change some of the langauge (e.g. "so-called partial birth abortion"), so don't get worked up by the characterization of some of these votes and (ii) it's always a good sign when our friends on the left are flumoxed over a conservative candidate's voting record.
Cheers,
JPS
I like Fred Thompson. Frankly, it's refreshing to see someone discuss the issues with candor. He seems to not be afraid to run from issues (i.e.. Libby, immigration and national security). He also has a broader worldview than the current crop. He's been successful in government and outside of government. His persona is not derived from government, which to me is attractive.
Fred Thompson could be an interesting choice. I like his straightforward approach and he may go into the election with an attitude of "I've got nothing to lose". This would allow him to speak his mind more freely, be more open, and likable to the public.
When I look at the current candidates, I just don't trust them completely. They seem to be talking about of both sides of their mouth. When I saw Thompson, he was honest and open, something that was refreshing to see. I don't know if I'd vote for him, but I think he would add a unique dynamic to the election.
The last time we had an actor in the White House, I think we did pretty well. Indeed, considering the Presidents we've had after the actor in the White House -- both Republican and Democrats -- I'm thinking about making being an actor a prerequisite for running for President in the United States.
And I'm only being slightly tongue-in-cheek when I write this.
No joke that if Fred Thompson entered the race, he would be my candidate.
...Thompson is willing to mention the attrition approach to illegal immigration as a possible alternative.
That puts him in front of both McCain and Giuliani on immigration, the former of which seems determined to not only grant amnesty, but also pass an unadvertised increase in legal immigration.
to cast a ballot for him as president. Of course I do not agree with him on all of the issues, but he comes across as reasonable, and fair minded. That leaves me comfortable that he does not have blinders on, but is willing to listen to all sides of an issue. And, if presented with strong facts he seems like the kind of man who would be willing to change his mind. He has cross over appeal for Independent voters, and he offers hope for this country. If he runs, and I hope he does, he has my vote.
Southern Women are Naturally Conservative.
regarding his hestitancy on whether or not he would support a fuel tax. That should be a no-brainer and a resounding "NO!". He does seem to support more domestic drilling which is a good thing. His support of campaign finance reform is another black-eye, although that is a forgivable offense. All in all, I think he is the GOP's best shot. He definitely has the most complete package as far as a candidate is concerned.
I love Fred. I just have a few issues regarding his hestitancy on whether or not he would support a fuel tax. That should be a no-brainer and a resounding "NO!".
Why?
IMMIGRATION PROFILE OF SENATOR FRED THOMPSON:
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/
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.
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. The bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission recommended doing away with the adult relative categories (begun only in the 1950s) in order to lessen wage depression among lower-paid American workers. The Simpson Amendment attempted to carry out that recommendation. But Sen. Thompson helped kill the reform by voting with the 80-20 majority against the amendment. Sen. Thompson’s vote helped continue a level of immigration that the Census Bureau projects will result in a doubled U.S. population in the next century.
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 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.
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. The verification system established by S.1664 did not involve an ID card. Rather it provided that when new workers wrote down their Social Security number on an application, employers could phone into a national verification system to help assure that the number was a real number and belonged to the person giving it. In earlier smaller pilot programs, businesses had hailed the verification system for making it easier for them to avoid hiring illegal aliens. Sen. Thompson was unsuccessful in stopping the voluntary verification system. The Senate tabled the by a 54-46 vote.
I must be doing something wrong here, could be...not sure.
Looks like you posted the same comment in three threads in under 20 minutes. That has to be a new record. I'll give you this, you're a very busy 'Bot. I can't tell what sort of bot, but an very busy sort of a bot.
I'm not sure of the need for surgical administration of a 'poon for you, and it's not my place, but that's pretty interesting behavior there pard.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
what you are doing is spamming.
If you think you can grow up, contact me and I'll turn your account back on. If not, then oh well...
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
streiff
Took a little digging, go to the web site linkie thing in the posting and do a search for "Mitt".
It's really surprising that the only canidate that the site referenced has anything good to say about is Mr. Romney. I think this is a new height, or low, for MittBots, but I am continued to be amazed at how once people are "assimilated", resistance is futile.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Fred Thompson is a fine man. I agree with him, apart from his misguided endorsement of McCain's campaign finance reform. But the 1996 loser, Bob Dole, is a fine man too. I don't see any more charisma from Fred Thompson than I saw from Bob Dole in 1996. Issue by issue, I agree with Thompson much more than I agree with Rudy Giuliani, but Giuliani has genuine charisma and Thompson doesn't. Giuliani puts States like New York and California in play. Thompson? I don't think so. I want at least half a loaf in 2008, because don't think it's possible to get the whole loaf.