Who would you vote for between Fred Thompson and John Edwards?

Answer 1

Fred Thompson.

But I would rather vote for Ron Paul.

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

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html
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

Answer 2

''Fred Thompson hands down''.Thompson's acting
skills far exceed John Edwards ability to act at all.There is also a plus to the American tax payers if Fred won over John. We wouldn't have to foot the bill for a $400.00 hair cut needed once a Month for John to look so handsome making the hundreds of speech's!''oops'',I mean acting classes. Think about it America ? If Edwards was to become our next President, it would roughly cost us $19,200 for his one term in office on his hair alone.Now then lets take a look at Fred Thompson. Very little maintenance on top of that doom. He knows what matters in the field of politics, truth &honesty as a Presidential Leader acting as one.

Answer 3

John Edwards

Answer 4

Fred Thompson...if I could vote

Answer 5

Fred all the way. Edwards is a phony, he all for giving govt aid to the home owners who screw up and penalize those who can do it the right way. How backwards is that??? He is against the military. He's done nothing to get our boys home?? Lies Lies Lies!!! (not that Mr Thompson is a saint, but more of one than Mr Edwards). Plus 1500 bucks for a haircut is way too much!!!

Answer 6

Definitely Edwards. Thompson is too far to the right to get anything through an increasingly Democratic Congress, therefore, the country's business would be at a standstill. Edwards, although not an ideal candidate, is a moderate Democrat, and more apt to work with both sides of the aisle to pass important legislation.

Answer 7

i could vote for Fred because of the fact he has been in movies. ok, i'm joking. yet what's gloomy is that some human beings could think of that way while they vote. Neither guy is probable qulaified for the pastime. i think of that a Richardson presidency could be interesting. i think of that bill Richardson is a greater conceivable candidate than maximum. Republicans do no longer seem to have a Richardson. they have a Rino (Guliani) whose strategies is concentrated too lots on massive city mentality.

Answer 8

John Edwards because he seems like he wants to enforce laws on the enviroment and just seems like a really down to earth family man that cares about people. I also think he's very intelligent and i like that he wants to pull troops out of Iraq.

Answer 9

Fred Thompson hands down. The breck girl nooooo way.

Answer 10

Edwards

Answer 11

John Edwards.