Fred has entered the building...

#76
#76
Political positions of Fred Thompson
Fred decribes himself as a conservative. He has said Federalism is his guiding principle, a "lodestar". "[It] provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: "Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?"[1]
"Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process."
"Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing."[2]
Here are some of Thompson's remarks and positions on various issues.
Taxation
In an April 14, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Thompson declared "Tax Cuts Mean Growth." "Because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been." [3]
[edit] Free trade
Thompson supports free trade and globalization. "It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that." [4]
[edit] Campaign finance reform
Thompson's opinion of McCain-Feingold is in three parts: He thinks that it was right to "do away with the soft money," that it was right to increase the limits on hard money - it was Thompson's amendment to increase the limits, but that the limitation on political speech within 30 or 60 days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.[5]
 
#77
#77
Thompson's original support of McCain-Feingold brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America because the legislation "severely limits the abilities of groups like GOA to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of politicians already in office."[6]
Thompson concedes that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended and has said "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."[7]
[edit] Social Security
Thompson has supported President Bush's Social Security privatization plan, and while he has not revealed details of his own Social Security plan, he has said that it depends on whether current recipients will be willing to sacrifice a bit on their benefits for future generations.[8]
[edit] Social policy
[edit] Abortion
Thompson describes himself as pro-life, but says the legality of abortion should be determined at the state level, in accordance with his federalist viewpoint. Until the late 1990's, he indicated that he was pro-choice but supported various restrictions on abortion. National Review has described him as having "voted with pro-lifers almost all the time."[9]
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) endorsed Thompson in 1994. As reported in The American Spectator, "Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn't have a 100% rating is that ... the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported."[10]
In a 2007 Fox News Sunday interview Thompson said, "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."[11]
 
#78
#78
[edit] Affirmative Action
Thompson voted against Senate amendment 1825 to H.R. 1854 which would ban Affirmative Action in the awarding of federal contracts. [17]
[edit] Global warming
Thompson is skeptical that global warming is caused primarily by human activities. To support his view, he has cited an argument (originally raised by K.I. Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Observatory) that warming has been observed in several other planets in the solar system (including Mars) and that this is evidence that Earth's warming is the result of solar activity.[18]
[edit] Gun control
Thompson supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms.[19] "The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so."
Speaking of the Virginia Tech massacre, he said: "Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago."[20]
Gun Owners of America (GOA) quoted Thompson as saying that he was "against gun control, generally." GOA went on to say, "And his voting record shows that to be true, generally. When he voted anti-gun, it was usually to expand federal authority. This is unfortunately consistent with his being a "law and order conservative" (pardon the pun)."[6] According to GOA, Senator Thompson voted pro-gun 19 times and anti-gun 14 times. Three of the anti-gun votes were for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act which places federal restrictions on the free speech of groups like GOA and their membership.
Thompson voted for the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban which disarms gun owners convicted of domestic violence, understood broadly to include misdemeanors such as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This ban can be imposed without a trial by jury and lasts a lifetime (except in the case that a misdemeanor is expunged). It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred in the past. The Senate vote was 97-2.
[edit] Immigration
Thompson states that US borders should be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform. "The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again."[4]
 
#79
#79
[edit] Immigration
Thompson states that US borders should be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform. "The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again."[4]
NumbersUSA summarizes his record as "Leans toward less immigration, less population growth, less foreign labor."[21]
Thompson received a career grade of "C" by the group Americans for Better Immigration.[22] They rated him A+ on Border Security, F on visas for foreign workers, and mostly Cs on other subjects.
[edit] Separation of Church and State
Thompson has concerns of federal judges deciding "social policy." "Many federal judges seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers. We never know when a five to four Supreme Court decision will uphold them. They ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around."[23]
[edit] Foreign Policy
[edit] Iraq War
Thompson voted to authorize the Iraq War in October 2002.[8] He has defended the decision since then.[8]
[edit] Iran
Thompson has said that Iran might have to be dealt with militarily. "I think the bottom line with Iran is that nothing is going to change unless there is a regime change."[8]
 
#81
#81
Well considering quite a bit of this comes from his one term as US Senator and the most current just clips of interviews rather than substantive platform responses, I'm still sitting on why is he so great? What makes him any different than Romney, McCain, or Giuliani? Or Newt if he jumps in?

Most of those scores are what is considered 'middle of the road' or what political scientists would call moderate.

On immigration he takes the classic neutral response of "secure the borders first". Fred I hate to break it to you but something has to be passed to fix that part. A wall at Mexico is burglar bars on the front door and all other windows left wide open.

I see nothing that sets him apart. I see nothing no different than cookie cutter focus group buzz phrases that sound good to a majority of Americans. I figured someone from TN would offer a little more meat and potatoes for their candidacy rather than Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

Better yet, I'll ask you why you're voting for Fred. What sets him apart from the rest of the pack? Where are his credentials?
 
#82
#82
I will tell you why I am voting for Fred.

A clear spoken communicator, a man who has been in Washington and know how to play the game without the corruption, the type of man who will not only respond to the Michael Moore types as they try to destroy America with clever editing. But also make him look crazy in a blunt take that sort of way. He is the type of man who will look our enemy in the eye and let them know exactly where we stand and why we stand there and make sure they know you are with us or against. He has the charisma to make it happen and rebuild relationships that W has killed. Many liberal news outlets have even said even if you don't agree with him you find that he has a true sincerity about him and you walk away impressed with him as a person.


FRED '08
 
#83
#83
And if I recall correctly they already passed a bill to build a wall and enforce it with National Gaurd Units. So I have heard Fred comment on this saying pretty much. At this point why would we pass another bill, we still haven't followed through with the first one. He said the problem is that the American public does not trust their elected leaders to follow through with the border security if they pass a new bill and still have not began work on the first. He said that the lack of trust America puts in their elected leaders is alomost as big a problem as the immigration itself
 
#84
#84
CSpindizzy said:
He may be the best hope for the GOP but all I see coming from his people is that he's the hope but no substance of why.
Click to expand...

...but don't you think that is probably by design? Let the "frontrunners" trade early blows and spend money and then sweep in as the savior. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Thompson is the GOP version of Barack Obama, only with more heavy hitters behind him.

I did chuckle a little though when I read that Thompson flew over to Great Britain to get the blessing of Margaret Thatcher.
 
#85
#85
I'd say that this time around, Thompson is more aptly compared to Al Gore. Both are running a shadow campaign for the Presidency yet neither have officially thrown their hats into the ring.

I don't see Thompson's lack of leadership experience as a big deal, but I hold no illusions about his "outsider" image. He's been involved in DC goings on since Watergate. I'm also prepared to be cynical, since all he is doing now is appealing to the GOP/conservative base that most, if not all, other Republicans in DC and the campaign trail have abandoned.
 
#86
#86
Sjernigan88 said:
I will tell you why I am voting for Fred.

A clear spoken communicator, a man who has been in Washington and know how to play the game without the corruption, the type of man who will not only respond to the Michael Moore types as they try to destroy America with clever editing. But also make him look crazy in a blunt take that sort of way. He is the type of man who will look our enemy in the eye and let them know exactly where we stand and why we stand there and make sure they know you are with us or against. He has the charisma to make it happen and rebuild relationships that W has killed. Many liberal news outlets have even said even if you don't agree with him you find that he has a true sincerity about him and you walk away impressed with him as a person.
Click to expand...

Has been in Washington and knows how to play the game...isn't that part of the problem now? People who know how to play the game? The guy has been the biggest insider up there out of all running. He's a trial lawyer. He's a lobbyist. He served one term in the Senate. Sounds more like Edwards than someone in the GOP.

As for communicator, he's actually a very boring speaker. Not sure if you saw the Lincoln Club speech out in Orange Co., CA but it was a snooze fest.

A lot of these things you listed are traits we have not seen and can only assume. How do you know he will look our enemy in the eye? Has he seen combat? Has he been in uniform? War? Anything beyond a Senate term? Can he repair relationships when he's already made some very polarizing comments?

I'm still not convinced someone who has spent many years being a lobbyist and trial lawyer protecting interests of specific groups and has only served one term in the Senate is qualified. If that is the credentials he has to offer, you might as well call for a Thompson/Edwards ticket because you'd have that 'perfect' resume for both seats.
 
#87
#87
GAVol said:
...but don't you think that is probably by design? Let the "frontrunners" trade early blows and spend money and then sweep in as the savior. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Thompson is the GOP version of Barack Obama, only with more heavy hitters behind him.

I did chuckle a little though when I read that Thompson flew over to Great Britain to get the blessing of Margaret Thatcher.
Click to expand...

Oh it is by design. But that is my point and criticism. How can all of these people flcok behind someone who has yet been taken through the gauntlet and has no platform? It's a lot of people with great credibility backing someone untested and unproven. Not that this is true but what if it comes out he's a crossdressing pedophile who pops E with Jerry Brown? There are hundreds of big names running to back a guy who they truly know nothing about nor do they know what his agenda is for this country. If I was a high profile Republican with serious cash, I'd be a little more cautious about backing someone until I know a little more about them.
 
#88
#88
CSpindizzy said:
How can all of these people flcok behind someone who has yet been taken through the gauntlet and has no platform?
Click to expand...

Because most people wouldn't know substance if it fell on their head, and it's much easier to jump on the bandwagon that is going down the hill the fastest.
 
#89
#89
Sjernigan88 said:
And if I recall correctly they already passed a bill to build a wall and enforce it with National Gaurd Units. So I have heard Fred comment on this saying pretty much. At this point why would we pass another bill, we still haven't followed through with the first one. He said the problem is that the American public does not trust their elected leaders to follow through with the border security if they pass a new bill and still have not began work on the first. He said that the lack of trust America puts in their elected leaders is alomost as big a problem as the immigration itself
Click to expand...

Again, a wall on the southern border is a joke of an effort to address the problem. If you read the news you will see where tunnels are being discovered all the time. Last week two TX National Guardsmen were found to be running an operation to sneak illegals in for money. So again, even if we "enforce what's already on the books" it is a joke. You need more than a wall to fix this. Considering many 'illegals' are actually ones who came here legally but are on expired visas, how does a wall fix that? How does a wall fix the Canadian border? Or the ports where Chinese and Eastern Europeans are coming in through?

Whether you like McCain or not, he's the only one who sees this as a major issue requiring more than a few guards and a wall on one border to fix. It's convenient for the rest of them to sit back and vent how we need to just build a wall but still offer nothing else. I wish they'd build the wall and finish it tomorrow. Then all of these fools would have to figure out something else to stir people up with especially since the issue will only get worse.
 
#90
#90
GAVol said:
Because most people wouldn't know substance if it fell on their head, and it's much easier to jump on the bandwagon that is going down the hill the fastest.
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing. The people I'm referring to are people I'd usually associate with knowing substance.
 
#91
#91
CSpindizzy said:
Well that's the thing. The people I'm referring to are people I'd usually associate with knowing substance.
Click to expand...

I think more than anything it's a comment on the perceived electability of the current field. There just aren't many inspiring choices for conservatives unless they want to hitch their wagon to Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee out of pure principle.
 
#92
#92
I think that somebody posting in this thread works for Fred. I won't say who it is though..:crazy:
 
#95
#95
Sjernigan88 said:
I disagree, Obama does not have the power to win this one and to be honest neither does Billary, I really feel like we are not willing to elect a woman or a black man with a muslim past at this point in our nations history. I am not trying to be racist or anti-fem, but I just do not see the public behind them yet.
Click to expand...

You know, the more people say "I'm not racist or sexist, but I think the rest of the country is," the longer it's okay for people to be racist and sexist.

Give your fellow voters some credit here - if the country weren't willing to vote a woman or black person into office, then I don't think a woman or a black person would be doing so well in the polls thus far.

I ask the Republicans on this board, would you be saying "the country's not ready" if the top two GOP prez candidates right now were Colin Powell and Elizabeth Dole?
 
#96
#96
Why in the world does it matter what color or sex you are?

Some people need to get out of the middle ages!
 
#98
#98
optimus-prime.jpg
 
#99
#99
Say what you will but the fact of the matter is Colin Powell or Eliz Dole could not win this one. Hillary might win the primary, but I feel the great hope for the Dems is if Al Gore decides to run. I know the times have changed. But Obama has not polled well in the south except in the urban areas and I have heard a lot of women say that they would not vote for a woman. As you can tell I am a R so I hope Hillary or Obama get the nod, The rights biggest fear is that Gore would run again, because W has screwed up our party enough that he could win hands down this time. (opinions only, the writer of this message is not responsible for any blood pressure rises among the left, the writer neither pushing of views or endorse the pushing of views among the left or right, opinions only)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top