Forced to vote for Fred Thompson?

Question

I like him well enough. He a good person, not too many negatives and a pretty likeable guy. I think he can handle DC politics, domestic issues and foreign policy.

However, the Democrats are forcing me to vote for him. Why? Their shrill attacks on him even before he annouced for the race. They fear him. He's a bigger star than Rudy, more appealing than Obama and can CRUSH Hillary on just about anything.

In the end, any person who causes the Liberals to scream like little girls must be pretty good. The last guy to do that was Reagan. Is there anybody better out there?

Answer 1

Fred Thompson is not a real conservative.
Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop3.html

As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo
The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities.
The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.


As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070809/cm_thenation/20070827hayes_1
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade
"Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility.
"Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes."

He also voted:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Ronald Reagan he is NOT!
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Answer 2

I'm afraid that the conservative, small government, responsible, lower taxes vote may be split between Ron Paul, Fred and Mit Romney.

I want someone in there who's going to cut out 90% of the pork in the federal government and return power and authority back to the states and the people!

Someone who's going to put in solid justices not activist.

I guess I'm asking for too much in this post liberty socialist america.

Answer 3

Well, we have no choice but to vote for "polititions". These people can shake their heads Yes, while saying No. You obviously have not read all the reports (not from opponents but news organizations) about Mr. Thompson. I like him as an actor and he has some good points, as do others, but not quite accepting him as "my" candidate. I don't think we will ever see another Reagan.

Answer 4

See, I care about 2 things.
1. Who can get us out of Iraq the fastest.
2. Who can get the Illegals out of America the fastest.

Thompson supports Bush's war in Iraq. Now there's a bad idea!

The strongest is Tom Tancredo who really wants the Illegals out. Then theres Ron Paul who says Illegals belong back home in Mexico. Then theres Fred Thompson who doesn't believe in amnesty. They are listed in order of who's the biggest enemy of Illegals first.

Hillary, Obama, Giuliani all favor Illegals over US Citizens. They're running for President of Mexico, I think.

Answer 5

If Fred is the Republican candidate, I'm voting for him. I do think Rudy's got a bit more experience, and I really like Huckabee and Hunter too but Fred does have the name recognition.

Answer 6

Perhaps, but it gives me pause to think what happened the LAST time we all voted against the loser the Democrats presented us rather than FOR a candidate who was fit for the job. Eight years of Bush's ineptitude have proven the dangers, but then again... Clinton? Obama?

Fred doesn't sound that bad after all.

Answer 7

It's pretty much the same with me. I'd vote for whomever the Republicans nominate just to keep from voting for a Democrat. And I do think that Fred is the best of the Republican candidates. If not, then he is the most conservative of the bunch...

Answer 8

I've been a Fred-Head since day 1, but I'd still like a little more substance from him regarding various planks of the platform.

All in all, he's got my vote!

Answer 9

What a great reason to vote for someone. I'm so glad that this is what people base their vote on. It's so much easier than trying to find someone that you actually think is gonna do a good job. With this new trend, our choices in voting will be so skewed that by the time Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton are old enough to run for President, they will actually be viable candidates for the Democratic party.

Answer 10

All Hail Fred!!

He's the second-coming of Ronaldus Maximus Reagan!

Let him get his message out and we'll all be OK.

He puts the wimpy liberals in their place!

Answer 11

Ann Coulter