Mitt Romney reacts to the NIE; Fred Thompson schools Charlie Rose on first principles

posted at 3:54 pm on December 5, 2007 by Bryan

I could have titled this post “In which I write positively about two serious GOP contenders.” That would probably have shocked a few of our readers, given the posts we’ve had to write about some of the candidates lately.

The latest Zogby poll still has Mitt Romney with a commanding lead in New Hampshire and a razor-thin lead in Iowa (with Huckabee nipping at him in Iowa). But that’s Zogby, so apply salt to taste. The RCP averages more or less agree, but have Huckabee up by a sliver in Iowa. Romney’s religion speech is set for tomorrow from College Station, TX, and that speech is a huge gamble. A statesmanlike-like, pander-free speech on religious freedom and patriotism could vault him past Huckabee in the national polls and put an solid grip on Iowa. A defensive, overly sectarian speech could doom his run and set up a Giuliani-Huckabee firefight for the nomination, or make room for someone like Fred Thompson to get back in the game. The point of all this background is to point out that this is a big week and the stakes are high, and that’s without even mentioning ongoing stories like the NIE or Gitmo, two issues that have helped dent Huckabee this week.

What does Mitt have to say on those issues? Well, he says things that make a lot of sense, at least to me.

That’s a solid reaction. A little more skepticism of the NIE is warranted than Romney displays here, but he makes the right point about the success of ongoing efforts to keep the Iranians and nuclear weapons far apart.

On the Romney campaign site, there’s a press release that gets into the Guantanamo issue, and here again all of the right notes make it into the tune.

“Today, the Supreme Court will once again hear arguments on the detention of captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. Some people view Guantanamo as a symbol of American aggression. I view it as a symbol of American resolve.

“Our country is asking young men and women in our military and intelligence services, and their families, to sacrifice beyond all knowing to capture or kill radical Jihadists before they plan and execute another attack on the United States. To win this fight, we must be able to detain and interrogate the terrorists they catch.

“The base at Guantanamo is designed to hold and question enemy combatants who pose a threat to the nation or have intelligence value. Closing and relocating the facility to the heartland of the United States, as some have suggested, would pose an undue risk to innocent Americans and, as today’s arguments demonstrate, could have profound legal implications.

“So long as it remains a vital tool to keep America safe, I will fight to keep Guantanamo Bay open.”

Gov. Romney is putting American security above international hand-wringing and adopting a wait-and-see approach to the case that’s in front of SCOTUS today. Two for two.

Now, how about teh Fred?

The polls have him dead in the water, but he’s still out there sounding the right notes. Campaign Spot caught him on the Charlie Rose show (video isn’t available yet) talking about issues versus principles with the host.

CHARLIE ROSE: You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today? Is George Bush a conservative?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, let`s talk about me. (LAUGHTER) I thought we might get to that. I think that it means things that are consistent with God`s design for man. It`s consistent with human nature. It`s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error, and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.

CHARLIE ROSE: In all of that, you didn`t mention abortion, gay rights — all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.

FRED THOMPSON: Those — well, you`re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles. I don`t consider them to be…

CHARLIE ROSE: Principles.

FRED THOMPSON: … the first principles. But the principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that. And everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles, and you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.

Solid. Fred gets federalism and gets to his issue stances based on his first principles, and his first principles are very similar to my own. I’d quibble with him about the Human Life Amendment, since the amendment process itself is largely a state process, but I can respect his stance without agreeing with it.

Based on what I know as of this writing and not just based on what’s in this post, I would be comfortable with Mitt Romney as President. I would also be comfortable with Fred Thompson as President. Both of them and several of the other GOP candidates are head and shoulders above all of the Democrats.

Update: Turns out the video of Thompson’s interview is available, here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Rush agrees with you, Bryan.

I do too.

see-dubya on December 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I heard this on Rush today. And although I’m only almost there in supporting Fred, this sounded soooo good. It was refreshing to hear someone list conservative principles and not just conservative issues. Well done Fred.

Weight of Glory on December 5, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Here’s the Rose-Thompson interview (uncut 55 min.)

Cuffy Meigs on December 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Cuffy Meigs on December 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Bless your heart.

Bill C on December 5, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Someone can be spot on for all the principles and issues, and still be a lousy President. If all you do is vote, then all you have to be is right on are the issues. But the President has to run a multi-trillion dollar a year organization with millions of employess, and to do that requires experience, experience (and energy) that Fred doesn’t have.

pedestrian on December 5, 2007 at 4:05 PM

How about a Thompson-Romney ticket or a Romney-Thompson ticket? Just a thought. Fred’s above remarks are some of the best I’ve heard during this whole miserable campaign.

matthewbit07 on December 5, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Both of them and several of the other GOP candidates are head and shoulders above all of the Democrats.

Couldn’t agree with you more…..but sadly 50% of the American public doesn’t have a head on their shoulders. It is firmly lodged elsewhere.

Limerick on December 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM

I’d vote for Fred, Mitt, Duncan, Tanc, and likely Rudy, but I wouldn’t feel good about it. If it were a Huck or (shudder) Ronpaul candidacy, I likely wouldn’t vote (I’m an absentee ballot, counted in Tarrant County, TX, so I have no idea how important my vote would be, anyway).

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Thompson has been the most solidly conservative out of the entire pack – Rudy, Mitt and Romney have lots of questions about whether their conservatives or just opportunistic. Hunter and Thompson have been solid and unwaivering since the get go.

Defector01 on December 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Another quote from the Rose interview:

Rose: Would you increase the number of tax cuts? How would you look at the revenue side?

Fred: In the first place, I don’t subscribe that a dollar in tax cut equals a dollar in revenue lost.

Rose: Are you close to being a supply sider?

Fred: Yeah! Very close! (chuckling)
.
AWESOME.

Cuffy Meigs on December 5, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Fred Thompson makes a very good point about where conservative principles come from, which is something Democrats can’t make, as they have no principles. That said I am with Weight of Glory and only “almost there”.

Fred needs to be a lot more proactive and let conservative voters know his beliefs, principles, and record.

I dislike Guiliani, and Romnee. Huckabee is barely palatable. McCain is pro-illegal immigration (corporate servitude) so he pretty much is a wash with me.

I will definately vote for the Republican candidate that wins the nomination, but most of their records are somewhat less than conservative.

Rode Werk on December 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Fred’s Conservative principles, those rock solid principles led him to chase toothless banjo playing moonshiners around Tennessee to impose the big bad federal governments laws on innocent hillbillies just trying to enjoy their hooch. Then those rock solid conservative principles led him to give legal advice to the defense team for the Libyan terrorist responsible for 270 deaths in the Lockerbee bombing. Those same principles allow him to claim he is and always has been pro-life even though he is against the Human Life Amendment, and is personally against criminalizing women who choose to have abortions and doctors who perform them. He has even stated in the past that he favors a right to choose an abortion in the first trimester. Heck, he even lobby for an abortion group. But he has always been pro-life… Once again, its those rock solid conservative principles that led him to vote time and against in the Senate to support his crony Spencer Abraham’s open border agenda.

I’m just gland we have Fred and his rock solid conservative credentials in this election…

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM

didn’t see that coming

Limerick on December 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Cuffy Meigs on December 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Thanks Cuffy, I was lookin’ fer that.

TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Either of those guys would work for me.

I think Thompson’s campaign has been hindered by a couple of things. One, he didn’t see Huckabee coming. I think a lot of Huckabee’s support is people who were disappointed by Thompson. If he can now contrast his beliefs with Huckabee’s record, he can pull some of that support back.

I wonder whether Thompson’s fortunes will improve once Tancredo and Hunter drop out of the race, and why social conservatives who support those two aren’t rallying behind the more viable candidate?

Slublog on December 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Hmm… I forgot McCain; I keep forgetting McCain. Why do I keeep forgetting McCain?

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Hmm… I forgot McCain; I keep forgetting McCain. Why do I keeep forgetting McCain?

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Who?

TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Slublog on December 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM

my frustration with the Party writ large……..I know it is all about competition…yada yada…zip-boom-bah….so instead of the RNC sitting everyone down and making the case for the good of the country, they sit around and do nothing. All this ‘eating our own’ will give the Dems a lot of great sound bites in October.

Limerick on December 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM

I agree as well…

stacman on December 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM

TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Exactly.

(No disrespect to his prior service to, and suffering for, this country. For that, I salute him.)

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:27 PM

What Fred had to say about conservatism was awesome. I heard the audio bite on Rush. I was waffling for awhile, but now have put my full support behind Fred. :)

Jodella on December 5, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Fred speaks to me on many levels.

I like the smell of what he’s cookin’.

TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 4:27 PM

All this ‘eating our own’ will give the Dems a lot of great sound bites in October.

Limerick on December 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Don’t worry, Hillary and Barack will give us plenty, too.

Frozen Tex on December 5, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Thompson sounds great on paper, he has very good proposals, and that was a great interview, but his dilatory entry into the race does not give me much confidence in his decision making abilities.

That being said, I could vote for any of them except Ron Paul, although Huckabee and McCain are at the bottom of the list.

Even Huckabee at his most liberal and most loathsome is still a hundred times more conservative than any of the Democrat candidates.

Buy Danish on December 5, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Thompson is a true conservative, and has been his whole career. Mitt sound like a conservative now, but not two or three years ago. If Mitt could show that he really believes in those values, then he would be a contender. But now he has to prove himself over time that he is what he says.
Huck is just plain weird, the laughing off of serious questions, his weak stand on immigration, taxes and I still think a strong religious leader is a weak political leader.
McCain is a dream gone bad, and Paul is just too angry to be anything.
But most people don’t look at history, they just listen and look at what is in front of them…if it looks like a president, and quacks like a president, he must be a president.

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 4:45 PM

There are a few issues that override all others for me when deciding who to vote for. They MUST be strong on defense. They MUST be willing to appoint “proper” Supreme Court justices. They MUST be strong against illegal immigration. And they MUST be able to beat Hillary. Romney’s my man!

davenp35 on December 5, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Either Thompson is as lazy as it appears, or he has the most inept campaign advisors EVER. The guy lost my vote long ago when his campaign imploded when he finally jumped in and realized the whole country wasn’t bowing and kissing his feet as he expected.
.
That one comment when he announced on Leno turned me off. Something like, “I don’t necessarily dream of being President (paraphrasing because I don’t remember that exact segment, but the following is exact) but there are certain things I want to do that I can only do as President.”
.
WTF???

stacman on December 5, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Where is the Chucklebee on Iran and the NIE? Duh.

I am good with Fred, don’t trust Romney on Immigration or taxes, or guns or …

tarpon on December 5, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I am finally convinced Fred is the only one who can do it. I have been undecided until this week. The immigration issue is a big deal for me and Rudy, Romney and Huckabee are all losers on immigration. I like what Fred has to say on immigration. I trust what he will do for the war on terror too. The caucus is less than a month away and I will support Fred.

Terri on December 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Fiscal conservative. I forgot that one. They MUST be a fiscal conservative.

davenp35 on December 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Another quote from Rose-Thompson re: torture
.

Fred: I’m telling you, as President, if the lives of a bunch of American citizens were at stake and I thought that there was a good chance that an individual had information and could impart imformation that would help save those lives, I’m just saying, that I would do whatever is necessary to get that imformation from that person. I would authorize that. Whatever is necessary to save a number of American lives (emphatically).
.
.
Everyone needs to watch this thing.

Cuffy Meigs on December 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM

But the President has to run a multi-trillion dollar a year organization with millions of employess, and to do that requires experience, experience (and energy) that Fred doesn’t have.

Don’t confuse energy with visibile excitability; Fred’s a slow cooker, but he’ll get to a boil.

Kensington on December 5, 2007 at 5:04 PM

I don’t get it. Why don’t people understand? What is a weapons program? Research into how to make a bomb – assuming you have the material.

Frankly I am surprised they didn’t stop “research” the day Kahn knocked on their door. The specs for a bomb are 65 years old. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS KNOWLEDGE IS NOT UBIQUITOUS.

Syria tells us ALL we need to know. Need a bomb spec, buy one – No Korea, China, Russia, France.

Making a nuke is EASY. In the history of man NO NUKE HAS EVER FAILED (not withstanding No Korea’s less than spectacular performance – it did work).

I am tired of all of the disinformation designed to limit our concern – when events so clearly show what is going on.

So Iran stopped research. Duh. They were done.

Agrippa2k on December 5, 2007 at 5:04 PM

I still like Hunter. *sigh*

But since this thread is about two of the others I like, I’m glad to see them taking more solid stances on these issues.

It’s sad that in the USA Mitt’s religion has taken so much from his substance. If you really look at all of his accomplishments juxtaposed with those of the other candidates Romney is a clear leader.

Fred sounds great, he’ll resonate with many voters. I just don’t know how much of it is acting. I’ll never forget how he let John Glenn sneak by during the Clinton years. I hope he’s clever enough to avoid any end-runs like that with our enemies if he wins the nomination.

Thanks for the positive post, Bryan!

NTWR on December 5, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Where is the Chucklebee on Iran and the NIE? Duh.

When asked about it earlier today, he didn’t know what it was…

urbancenturion on December 5, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Again, everything that comes out of Fred’s mouth is GOLDEN. The guy is spot on.

msipes on December 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM

If Fred’s rock solid conservative credentials make him the only candidate that can be trusted on immigration, can someone please explain this article from the Washington Times — not a liberal rag.

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Going into December, you almost need a day-trader to call this race: Buy low, sell high. Repeat. Over and over. Now that everyone’s kicked Fred while he’s down, maybe he’s due for a resurgence. Now that Huck’s ridden too high – time to bring him down. A few days of scandal, time to buy Rudy. Mitt’s speech is like an earnings announcement…

CK MacLeod on December 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Based on what I know as of this writing and not just based on what’s in this post, I would be comfortable with Mitt Romney as President. I would also be comfortable with Fred Thompson as President. Both of them and several of the other GOP candidates (Not to include Rudycapocorrupto and The High Reverend Hucksterocchio.) are head and shoulders above all of the Democrats.

Agreed.

MB4 on December 5, 2007 at 5:50 PM

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Hey good Google search, how long did it take you to find that one article?
Here try this information, the man who wrote the article, does this sound like a man you put your faith in?
Stephen Dinan’s
The guys you did up to diss Thompson…you should be ashamed.
Here’s a good quote from him, for those who don’t want to look at his own site (but you have to read it):

I see it as a moral obligation for all citizens of America to ensure that the Republican Party breaks the spiral of power intoxication, ethical decay, and arrogance that is leading it far away from the healthy expression of conservative values.

Can’t miss this:

Two months ago, after a fundraiser for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, I woke up with a crystal clear vision for how San Francisco could again provide a platform for the leading edge of our culture: a Summer of Peace in which the best practices, organizations, and leaders from around the world are focused on transforming the roots of violence in the society as a whole.

Gee, I wonder why he wrote that article?…if he is against Thompson, I am for Thompson.

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 5:53 PM

I think Fred’s ideology is right and I’m surprised he isn’t polling better.

There are still about 15% undecided Republican voters in Iowa. And remember these results from November 2003
Not Sure 34%
Howard Dean 15
Wesley Clark 10
Dick Gephardt 9
Joe Lieberman 9
John Kerry 7
Al Sharpton 4
John Edwards 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
Carol Moseley Braun 2
Other 6

bigbeas on December 5, 2007 at 6:02 PM

This thread just doesn’t taste right without a sprinkling of CSD-certified “scumbag lobbyist” granules

Ochlan on December 5, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Based on what I know as of this writing and not just based on what’s in this post, I would be comfortable with Mitt Romney as President. I would also be comfortable with Fred Thompson as President. Both of them and several of the other GOP candidates are head and shoulders above all of the Democrats.

Yup, couldn’t agree more.

Speakup on December 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM

I could go for Thompson or Romney, Thompson first because of Romney’s Flip-Floppery. But, if Thompson doesn’t get his numbers up, Romney’s OK. I think Thompson is a natural conservative, but I also think Romney is talented and has a capacity for adaptive change that would allow him to be a respectable conservative. I just worry that Romney might choose to change from being a conservative if he’s put under enough pressure. A large capacity for adaptive change is a two-edged sword.

It’s pretty gutsy of Romney to address religion tomorrow. I’ll be watching that more closely than I’ve watched any of the debates. I expect a good performance from Romney, maybe even historic. We’ll see.

jaime on December 5, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Fred speaks to me on many levels.

I like the smell of what he’s cookin’.

TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 4:27 PM

But it’s always on simmer. I need a rolling boil or some steam…something more?!?!?

SouthernGent on December 5, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Fred is becoming my guy again. Wish he was 10 years younger.

JellyToast on December 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Fredmentum on Hotair?

Theworldisnotenough on December 5, 2007 at 7:46 PM

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Okay. You didn’t like the source of that article but how about the facts reported in the article. You were mum on that. Here are just a few of Fred’s open boarders votes.

2000: Voted for S.2045, a foreign worker bill with no worker protections. Sen. Thompson voted for the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. Despite a GAO report finding no evidence of a worker shortage and suggesting fraud in the H-1B program, Rep. Thompson voted for this bill that included no worker protections or anti-fraud measures. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have lowered the annual cap on skilled-worker visas and eliminated the category for unskilled workers. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed. 
1998: S.1723, Voted against the American worker in committee. Rep. Thompson stood solidy against American workers by opposing a Feinstein amendment to S.1723 to reduce the H1B increase from 5 years to 3. The amendment failed by 2 votes.
1998: Voted in committee against American workers. The Kennedy-Feinstein Amendment to S.1723 would have accomplished two important goals: ensuring no American was laid off or displaced prior to hiring an H1B employee; and, requiring that employers demonstrate they had previously taken timely and effective steps to hire a qualified American. 10 Senators helped defeat this amendment.
1998: Voted against offering jobs to Americans first. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy amendment(A-2417) to S.1723 that would have required U.S. firms applying for H-1B visas to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. The amendment failed 39-59. 
1998: S.1723, Voted to allow American workers to be fired and repalced with a foreign worker. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy Amendment (A-2418) to S.1723 that would have protected American workers from being fired and replaced by a foreign worker (H-1B visa holder). The amendment was defeated 38-60.
1998: Voted against protecting American workers. Rep. Thompson was part of the majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee that voted to send S.1723 to the floor of the Senate without safeguards for American workers.  
1998: Voted for S.1723, nearly doubling hi-tech visas. Rep. Thompson helped the Senate pass S.1723 in a 78-20 vote. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years even though U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time. 
1997: Voted for an amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba. Sen. Thompson voted for a procedural move that helped allow the Mack Amendment to be included in S.1156 (the District of Columbia Appropriations bill). This amendment granted amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba and is expected to add close to one million people to U.S. population. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have limited annual refugee admissions to 50,000, as recommended by the Jordan Commission. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted in favor of the immigration lottery Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have eliminated the immigration lottery and significantly reduced chain migration. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have eliminated lottery visas. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to reduce the immigration lottery. The Simpson amendment to S.1664 would have reduced the annual number of visas allocated to the lottery category from 55,000 to 27,000. The amendment failed by 80-20 on the Senate floor. 
1996: Voted in favor of chain migration Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have significantly reduced chain migration by lowering annual admissions of spouses and minor children of citizens to 480,000 a year. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have greatly reduced chain migration by eliminating several extended-family categories. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The Abraham amendment passed. 
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to end chain migration. The Simpson Amendment to S.1664 would have ended chain migration which the Census Bureau projects will double the U.S. population again in the next century. The Senate voted 80-20 to kill the reform. 
1996: Voted in committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664 to reduce fines against employers who hire illegal aliens Sen. Thompson voted as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664. The Hatch Amendment stripped the provision from S. 1664 that increased fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens, thus making it less attractive for businesses to hire illegal aliens. The Hatch Amendment passed by a vote of 9-8.
1996: Voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to S. 1644, a vote against of increased interior enforcement Sen. Thompson voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to strip the voluntary workplace verification program from S. 1644. Workplace verification programs help reduce illegal immigration by withdrawing the job magnet from illegal aliens. The Abraham Amendment failed by a vote of 54-46. 

Look at how many were for his crony Abraham. Just the facts. If he is the only consistent conservative with rock solid principles that we can trust to enforce the immigration laws, WE ARE DOOMED.

Everyone keeps trotting out Rudy’s comments where he went a little over board in pandering to the huge illegal population that NYC was stuck with because of the feds failure to control the border. However, the liberals see through that and see the real Rudy. Check out this old NYC article quoting Sharpton:

The Rev. Al Sharpton attacked Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s record on immigration issues yesterday, calling it ”reactionary and repulsive.” Mr. Sharpton said Mr. Giuliani’s actions as an Assistant Attorney General a decade ago, when he fought to hold Haitian refugees in detention camps, belied his recent efforts to present himself as a friend of immigrants.

”Rudolph Giuliani sat in President Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department fighting against Haitians,” Mr. Sharpton, a Democratic Mayoral candidate, said in a speech released in New York City and delivered last night at a celebration in Bridgetown, Barbados.

”Rudy Giuliani’s track record on immigrant issues is reactionary and repulsive,” he said.

”He comes now in an election year posing as a friend to immigrants, but his record speaks volumes to the contrary,” he said….

Mr. Giuliani declined comment on Mr. Sharpton’s remarks. ”The Mayor does not respond to Mr. Sharpton,” said the Mayor’s campaign spokesman, Sunny Mindel.

Now that sounds like someone you can trust on immigration. Reagan administration. Illegal Haitians in concentration camps. NYT runs smear jobs on him. Sharpton hates him. He ignores Sharpton. What’s not to like.

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Fred gets serious

bnelson44 on December 5, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Fred’s Conservative principles, those rock solid principles led him to chase toothless banjo playing moonshiners…

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Oh, so it’s personal.

Bill C on December 5, 2007 at 10:34 PM

I’m sorry I missed this thread. Very nice, Bryan. Looks like we may have a few more converts.

Connie on December 6, 2007 at 12:13 AM

tommylotto on December 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Yawn. Was our resident ambulance-chaser barking again?

Down, boy! Down, boy. You couldn’t drive one if you caught it!

Texas Nick 77 on December 6, 2007 at 5:28 AM