Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


WashTimes: Fred soft on illegals in Senate voting record Update: Fred fires back

posted at 10:02 am on September 5, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view

Ruh-roh.

Fred Thompson set a mark for obstinateness during his eight years in the Senate, ending up the lone dissenter on more votes on bills and amendments than any other Republican during that time.

Sometimes being the lone holdout against, say, pork-laden bills or idiotic new rules (of the “I’ll force you to see a doctor whether you like it or not” variety) is the right thing to be. But is that Fred’s voting record? Sometimes, but not always.

Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens — he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal — and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs.

Like any senator’s record, there are good votes and bad votes in the pile. The question is, are there more good ones than bad ones?

Among the votes sure to be popular among conservatives are a 1997 vote to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and a 1999 vote against requiring guns to be sold with gun locks. Another frequent Thompson target was a subsidy to promote U.S. agricultural products overseas, which he regularly voted to slash.

But on immigration, Mr. Thompson had several votes where he bucked the pack — and seemed to favor illegal aliens.

The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens’ ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat.

And in 1996, as Congress considered a crackdown on illegal aliens, Mr. Thompson voted against setting up a system so employers could verify the legal status of their workers.

An adviser to the campaign on immigration matters, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Thompson had concerns about how broadly the public-benefits provision was drawn. As for the employer verification system, the adviser said Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.

Two parts of Thompson’s voting record stand out as problematic for conservatives: campaign finance reform and immigration. Fwiw, on both of those issues, Thompson has reversed himself and now isn’t a fan of the CFR he helped shepherd into law, and does favor the employer verification system that he once opposed. The welfare vote is probably going to hang around for a while, though. On its face, it looks indefensible, as it puts law-abiding citizens in the position of being forced to pay for benefits for people who violated our laws to get here and stay here, and often without bothering to work to support themselves.

Update: It’s looking like a campaign alright: Candidate gets criticized, campaign kicks out a quick press release in response. It’s not on Fred’s site yet, but here’s part of it:

(McLean, VA) Senator Fred Thompson has been a consistent supporter of conservative immigration proposals that would improve border security; eliminate incentives for illegal immigrants to come to the United States and obtain welfare benefits; and strengthen employment verification procedures. He has an “A+” rating from Americans for Better Immigration for his senate voting record on border security issues.

FACT: OPPOSED the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill.

OPPOSES amnesty for illegal immigrants.

SUPPORTS tougher border control along the U.S./Mexican border.

SUPPORTS increased penalties against alien smuggling and document fraud.

And–

Fred Thompson Voted For “The Immigration Control And Financial Responsibility Act Of 1996″ As Part Of The Senate Judiciary Committee And On The Senate Floor.

(S. 1664, Roll Call Vote #107, Cloture Motion Passed 100-0, 5/2/96, Thompson Voted Yea).

The I’m With Fred site will probably have the entire release up before the end of the day, linked off this page.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

OH no not you to Fred!!

There isn’t a Republican in the field that’ll deport!!

Disaster.

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 10:06 AM

The better we get to know him, the less impressed I am.

Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Eh but that was a welfare overhaul bill, I doubyt very seriously the bill consisted of one line that read “This shall make it illegal to give welfare to illegal aliens.”

To judge this accurately you need the entire text of the bill and why he did not vote for it.

P.S. Attacking Fred from the left in the primaries endears him in the general, hehe.

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Fred is politically dead and going nowhere. It the age of terror, i’m sure he has a new outlook on his former stance. His lameness during the impeachment hearings was only bested by Arlen Spector.

roninacreage on September 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM

I’m curious to the reason that most of the dissenters on the welfare bill were Republican.

frankj on September 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM

frankj on September 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM

But most Republicans supported it, as did most Democrats. Only 4 Republicans and 1 Dem were against it, 5 out of a 100 Senator chamber. Apparently it was worthy enough for 95 Senators to lend their name – and careers – on it.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM

94 other, sorry.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM

In defense of Federalism

A Washington Times review of his record also shows that he was willing to take a stand against his party time and again to protect plaintiffs’ rights to sue teachers, companies that failed to solve the Y2K computer glitch and company executives even if they were unaware of fraud.

Mr. Thompson’s legislative record has been attacked as thin because in his eight years in office, he sponsored relatively few bills and was the driving force behind few legislative accomplishments. But his votes show a man with an aversion to federal intrusion on state prerogatives and with a willingness to take quixotic stands on principle, when other Republicans chose to go along to get along.

The thing I hear most from conservative independents is the frustration with a party they want to agree witih but can’t. A Republican candidate that actually thinks the Federal government should mind it’s own busiiness and has a voting record to back it up is not a hindrance to electability. Considering Rudy is the most authoritarian candidate going. Rudy said, “I will indentify every illegal alien in the country” I thought how in the heck are you going to do that? Go door to door, sheesh.

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Hallelujah!!!! This has been one of my hole cards that I’ve been waiting for someone else to mention!!

freds? “qualifications” as the “only” conservative.

1) pro immigration
2) scum bag lobbyist
3) pro-choice
4) Washington insider
5) funnels cash to his family
6) fake red pickup truck
7) McCain/Feingold
8) piss poor senate record
9) no executive experience
10) lazy
11) wants to do “some stuff” as pres. IE sleep in Lincoln bedroom
12) history as a man whore

fred? probably can’t wait for his poll numbers to bottom out so he can convert his campaign contributions into a PAC so he can funnel that $3.4 million to his family.

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 10:28 AM

This is why we don’t often elect Senators as President. Too many votes to defend, too many seemingly different positions taken through the past.

For example, John Effin’ Kerry’s “voted for it before against it,” while sounding very stupid the way he said it, may have been better explained. “I was for it initially, but some specifics that were added to the final bill I was not able to support for reasons x,y,z.” Of course, that not only makes poor sound bites, but also adds to the image that he thought he was smarter than all of us hicks out here.

No win situation when you go down that road.

JamesLee on September 5, 2007 at 10:34 AM

The worst thing is his ‘95 illegal/welfare vote. The others aren’t bad…

The whole Thompson campaing, and the reason why he’s so popular, is because of who he is …the kind of President he will be …and not because of any past voting record in the Senate.

Is Fred “all style, no substance”? Close…but c’mon, most people in this country don’t really vote on issues…that’s for the big blocs like unions. It’s all about who shines the brightest…and Thompson is the North Star. From the South, of course…

JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM

To all of those who have said Fred has done nothing, he has no record, I am assuming you are going to ignore this post.

We have to compare all of the candidates to each other, and choose the one that best fits our goals.

Rudy is a social liberal but talks tought, Mitt is a wishy-washy flip flopper, but a good businessman, Fred has charisma, but is not known for his leadership, Brownback no one shows up, Huckabee maybe the best overall fit, but no name recognition.
Every candidate has a negative, but none as negative as the liberals.

right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 10:36 AM

The worst thing is his ‘95 illegal/welfare vote. The others aren’t bad…

JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM

And his 1996 vote:

And in 1996, as Congress considered a crackdown on illegal aliens, Mr. Thompson voted against setting up a system so employers could verify the legal status of their workers.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Fred¡ blew his chance for a coronation like GWB received in 2000. Now he is going to have to scrap it out with the others and he ain’t looking so good.

Valiant on September 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Looking more and more like I’ll just have to write myself in as President.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Nope. I was one of them. As was CSDeven who has already posted. The question now is: What makes Fred any more Conservative than the others? He voted against enforcement. He has the same line on national security. He wrote in 1994 that he was in favor of allowing abortions “in all cases” in the first term. He supported McCain/Feingold.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Eh but that was a welfare overhaul bill, I doubyt very seriously the bill consisted of one line that read “This shall make it illegal to give welfare to illegal aliens.”

To judge this accurately you need the entire text of the bill and why he did not vote for it.

P.S. Attacking Fred from the left in the primaries endears him in the general, hehe.

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM

My thoughts as well. The devil is in the details.

I don’t know how far this guy will go, but I like how he’s making a bunch of people yank their waistbands up under their armpits and dance around like their socks are on fire.

El Cazador on September 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Tancredo-Hunter looks better all the time.

And why the hell should illegals get free health services (except dire emergency room visits that lead to deportation?) or education benefits at all?

profitsbeard on September 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Fred needs to start talking for himself.

We know people will try to find all kinds of skeletons in his closet and bash him with them. That is the nature of the game.

Should be an interested few weeks.

bnelson44 on September 5, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Damn. A lot of hate here for Mitt. What’s up?

Allahpundit on September 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Everyone seems to be enchanted with Fred, but Fred is looking more and more like he is the one that is most enchanted with Fred. Don’t count Mitt out.

saiga on September 5, 2007 at 10:56 AM

but none as negative as the liberals.

right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Ron Paul has less negatives than fred?. If nominated Ron has a vision that HE will lead on. freddie boy will leave it to soldiers in the field, his friends, and his wife to tell him when to lead.

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

But most Republicans supported it, as did most Democrats. Only 4 Republicans and 1 Dem were against it, 5 out of a 100 Senator chamber. Apparently it was worthy enough for 95 Senators to lend their name – and careers – on it.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM

So you’re uncurious?

frankj on September 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Way to take things out of context. You don’t know why he voted that way, nor can you accurately summarize a bill in one sentence. You might as well say about the shamnesty bill: “xxx senator voted against a bill that would offer comprehensive immigration reform.”

Ortzinator on September 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Tancredo-Hunter looks better all the time.

I sure like Tanc’s position on illegals, but he just doesn’t seem to have the personality to stir the soul of the American people, and that is too bad.

Rudy does, but he is a one trick pony with bad positions on illegals and gun control.

McCain can’t be trusted, but Mitt could be the one.

Mitt /Huckaby could be fun in 08

saiga on September 5, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Nobody actually knows what the bill said but they are ready to criticize Fred’s vote on it, genius, sheer unadulterated genius…

doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 11:07 AM

So you’re uncurious?

frankj on September 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

On that one, no. However, the one that created an employer identification database?…

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Fred sure has got things jumping. Must be doing something right … LOL

Before long the whole Republican field will be sounding like Fred, too bad they can’t be Fred.

tarpon on September 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Any info on how he feels about the idea of a North Americna Union? I’ve been hearing some really terrible things, among them that the NAU is supported by Bush and it’s supporters are trying to “sneak ” it through. Perhaps bearable with Canada, but Mexico? I should hope not!!! That country cannot even manage itself–let alone be a useful, contributing member of an economic community. Just a bigger pot for them to steal from.

jeanie on September 5, 2007 at 11:55 AM

A response. Excellent, a distinct improvement over the preceding months. Maybe he is getting serious, or maybe he was serious and now he has competent staff.

Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 11:56 AM

-csd

13) I will be voting for man whore Fred.

I expect Fred to have voted against any Senate bill that did not either dissolve a portion of the federal government or defend the nation.

AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Do a search for Fred’s voting record at http://profiles.numbersusa.com/

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM

the Clintons are on the attack already/

shooter on September 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!! fred?, you got lots of ’slaining to do!

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:11 PM

If Fred has a logical explanation for voting to give the hard earned tax money of fellow citizens to law breaking aliens throught welfare benefts, why did he not explain the vote in his response?

Rudy has time and again explained his less popular positions on abortion, gun control, and not reporting illegal aliens seeking city services for health and safety purposes (i.e., sanctuary city). You may not like his answer, but he addresses the issue and explains himself.

The allegation against Fred was very specific and the response was very general, almost generic. The Fredheads will eat it up, I’m sure, but what about us thinking rational individuals?

tommylotto on September 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.

We already have a national ID card!

Harpoon on September 5, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!! fred?, you got lots of ’slaining to do!

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Explaining to do for what? I may write-in my own name come election day.

Kinda creepy to think you’re keeping tabs on those who are not going to vote for your Mitt! though.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Kinda creepy to think you’re keeping tabs on those who are not going to vote for your Mitt! though.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM

It’s kinda creepy that after 5 months you still have no clue who I support for POTUS.

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:07 PM

It’s kinda creepy that after 5 months you still have no clue who I support for POTUS.

csdeven

It’s really not creepy and quite innocent, I rarely read what you post.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

It’s really not creepy and quite innocent, I rarely read what you post.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Ditto. He’s not honest enough to come out and say it, but he’s made it abundantly clear that he’s a Mormon who’ll only vote for the Mormon candidate, no matter what. There’s no point in engaging the troll; I don’t know why people bother.

Since Fred has all but destroyed whatever chance Mitt might have had, that’s where his religion-motivated hatred gets directed.

Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 2:00 PM

So he doesn’t actually respond to the votes pointed out. He just tries to draw our attention to other ones.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

So he doesn’t actually respond to the votes pointed out. He just tries to draw our attention to other ones.

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Give him a little time- I’d like to see a more detailed response, but can’t expect one to come instantly given that we’re talking about votes from 12 years ago.

Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM

He has an “A+” rating from Americans for Better Immigration for his senate voting record on border security issues.

NOT TRUE. He has a “C” grade from Americans for Better Immigration.

CitizenJim on September 5, 2007 at 2:50 PM

amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Riding the coattails of csdeven won’t help you any, most consider him a little nutty obsessive would be a better word (if I could spell). The best is a “man-whore”, how embarassing to actually print that.

Mitt ran from being a conservative when attacked by Kennedy, he ran and hid. That takes Mitt out of the conservative arena. I understand staking out positions, and such, but when confronted you should have the Malkins to stand your ground…Mitt did not, he shrunk away like a little girl.

Now look at the update, and you can see he is more conservative than Mitt, certainly more than Rudy. Huckabee is the only one that can claim more conservative than Fred.

You don’t know where Mitt stands, he has stood on so many postitions he has a hard time figuring out what he is today. What he is is a pretty good businessman, and that is what he should continue. He is just too weak to be a leader. Fred may also be weak in that area (though not as weak as Mitt), we will see.

Not surprising that the hit pieces are coming out on Fred, by next week he will be the poll leader. And you guys will salivate over each liberal attack on a conservative.

right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I remember being out of control paranoid in the 90’s that the Clintons would create a National I.D. system so they could track me down and steal my guns. I was young, but wasn’t Fred playing to the base on this one? 10 years ago I thought the idea of a national ID card was more dangerous than illegals, and would have wanted my reps to vote accordingly, of course back then I was Libertarian conspiracy theorist.

But really, didn’t a lot of us think the smae way in the 90’s?

Rob Taylor on September 5, 2007 at 3:04 PM

It’s really not creepy and quite innocent, I rarely read what you post.

moonsbreath on September 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Yet, here you are speaking as if you are an authority on who I am supporting.

Stupid a$$.

csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM

If Fred opposes amnesty that is what I’m looking for. I have not heard Rudy commit to deportation only “stopping illegal immigration” which is a pretext to granting amnesty a path to citizenship. I would prefer Fred come out in favor of workplace enforcement and and increasing legal and truly temporary worker program to fill any possible worker shortages. We aren’t there yet. When companies start shutting down then you know we need more temp[orary workers. But the infrastructure to bring in legal workers should already be in place and it is not.

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Theworldisnotenough on September 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM

A practical post.

right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.