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


Fred says the Bush admin “overlawyered” the DC gun case

posted at 2:30 pm on January 16, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view

It gets tough to blog about Fred. For the front page thumbnail do I choose a shot of red meat or a shot of Marblehead himself? Hard to lose either way, actually. And if I can find a messianic shot, well, I have to use that.

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa’s Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.’s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General’s request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for “fact-finding”, the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was “overlawyering” and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Right on the money answer to a question that’s tailor-made and perfectly timed for the South Carolina primary. And a perfect way for Fred (and the other candidates, if they so choose) to distance themselves from the Bush administration without alienating conservatives or seeming to appease the left in any way.

It’s not the first time Fred has weighed on in Heller, so he can’t be accused of pandering. He’s saying what he actually believes.

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.

By the way, Rep. Eric Cantor has a petition up at Save the Second.


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: 1 2 3

FredMessiah? Fat Chance.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Central reason ImFerFred. Let’s hear Mitt or Rudy speak up on this after they’ve already made their positions on weapons known(weapons of unusual lethality/crime is only dropping when guns are being confiscated).

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM

You not crapping in a Fred post? Fat chance.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Keep talking BKennedy. All you do is make me MORE sure of the fact I’m making the right decision in voting for Fred.

Yeah..as if anyone’s gonna listen to a Kennedy on this site. LOL. JK.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Right on the money answer to a question that’s tailor-made and perfectly timed for the South Carolina primary.

Then there’s also the possibility that he actually believes in the second amendment and isn’t just pandering to S.Carolina voters.

billy on January 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Because this isn’t an issues election. People are siding with candidates they can identify with and who make them feel good.

bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

billy on January 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM

You really ought to read all the way to the end of posts.

Bryan on January 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I’m going on record now. I am TOTALLY sick of p*$$y conservatives. Either vote for the only conservative of the lot…or stop calling yourself a conservative.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

His campaign isn’t being run very well, and folks–in general–are more concerned about looming economic problems and other such ’social’ issues…

eanax on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

You not crapping in a Fred post? Fat chance.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Personally I blame Ron Paul for Fred’s crappy numbers.

I mean, when the racist libertarian crank is beating you by 70%+ in every state except Iowa thus far, you have to wonder why people would take you seriously.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

I;d love Fred to say “Liberals say you should be afraid of people owning guns. I say yes but only at the voting booth !”

William Amos on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Either vote for the only conservative of the lot…or stop calling yourself a conservative.

You know what I like best about Thompson supporters? The tolerance…the love.

Feel it.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Wow someone sounds testy today that Mitt isnt moving anywhere else.

William Amos on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

I am voting for Fred! no matter what the outcome is in SC, Super Tuesday or beyond. I am a conservative. I want a conservative candidate.

I will vote for Fred! even if I have to write him in when Texas has its primary in March or in November in the general election.

SimplyKimberly on January 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Personally I blame Ron Paul for Fred’s crappy numbers.

I mean, when the racist libertarian crank is beating you by 70%+ in every state except Iowa thus far, you have to wonder why people would take you seriously.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Care to venture a theory as to the cause of this? And why is RP not the cause of Rudy’s crappy numbers as well? After all, he’s beating him in the primaries too.

fossten on January 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM

FRED-on Apply directly to the White House
FRED-on Apply directly to the White House
FRED-on Apply directly to the White House

ReaganConservative3 on January 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM

It’s not the first time Fred has weighed on in Heller, so he can’t be accused of pandering. He’s saying what he actually believes.

Shocker!

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM

You really ought to read all the way to the end of posts.

Bryan on January 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I reread after I posted.
My bad.
Nevermind.

billy on January 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Because this isn’t an issues election. People are siding with candidates they can identify with and who make them feel good.

bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

As I’m becoming fond of saying on this site:

I hope you’re wrong. I’m afraid you might be right.

thirteen28 on January 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I can’t figure it out. He is so much better across the board that he should be up by double digits in all the southern states. The only thing I can figure is that the “almost total” media blackout of Fred is taking it’s toll. There are a lot of people out there that shouldn’t be voting that are. I still think that he will do a lot better in SC than the press thinks.

duff65 on January 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Just learnin’ to give what I get, Hon. Just. That. Simple.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

This is so frustrating! Fred has just been spot on with the true conservative position every time. I just fail to understand why he is not catching fire.

I have to admit that I am a pretty CONSERVATIVE conservative and I usually disagree with at least some of what the candidates I support stand for, but I haven’t agreed so much with a candidate since Reagan.

GO FRED!

tballard on January 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’ll write-in Fred! here in California if he doesn’t win (or close 2nd) in SC and has to drop out.

And IF Fred! wins SC (BIG if, I know), I predict a whole lotta: “Well, he’s from next door” and “He needed this to stay in the race, BUT, if he doesn’t win state X, then he’ll have to drop out”

omnipotent on January 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM

If you expected a door mat, you’re at the wrong door.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM

I’m not the least bit surprised that Fred is on the right side of this issue. That’s why I support him and not one of the chameleon candidates.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM

You know what I like best about Thompson supporters? The tolerance…the love.

Feel it.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Much as I dispise Huck and hopes he gets kicked to the curb permanently in SC, he has a point about Fred.

Where IS the Fred anti-immigration legislation? Where IS the Fred pro-life legislation? Where IS the Fred pro-second amendment legislation?

Fred only wants to attack others when he gets the media spotlight. When nobody knows what you stand for and you have nothing to back it up, you can’t win.

The biggest reason Fred Thompson is a non-factor? He’s better known for being an actor than a Senator. He has no landmark conservative legislation to his name, and even people in Washington DC, his insidery base of operations know him more from L&O than from Tennessee Senatorship.

Nobody talks about the Fred Thompson bill because there isn’t empty. He’s a vessel for conservative hope, and nothing more.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Wait till Sat. night.

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Heh. Between this and the RP threat I almost feel compelled to say I heart Slu.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

I assume by conservative you mean all non ‘1st Amendment Conservatives’. I do agree though if everyone voted what they wanted regardless of perception of ability to win, he’d probably be higher.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM

*Nobody talks about the Fred Thompson Bill because there isn’t one. He’s an empty vessel for conservative hope, and nothing more.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Is the NRA planning to endorse anyone anytime soon?

someguy on January 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM

It gets tough to blog about Fred.

It’ll be even tougher once he’s out of the race.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Great answer. Now why isn’t he doing better than fourth place in SC?

The Zogby poll #s are older than the Rasmussen tracking poll, and, anyway, they’re Zogby!

That said, no one knows nothing. Huckabee and McCain might be collapsing in the wake of MI, or they might be solid in SC. Mitt might get a bounce or he might be better off focusing on NV. Fred might finish in single digits or he might finish 1st. He might be a genius campaigner who saw something that no one else saw and is peaking at the right time, or he might be the “catatonic” or “somnambulant” (choose your favorite Dick Morris slam) moron who squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by not taking the wave at its crest last Summer.

CK MacLeod on January 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Is the NRA planning to endorse anyone anytime soon?

They tend to endorse late, don’t they? From what I remember, they didn’t endorse Bush until a few months before the general election in 2004.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM

*Nobody talks about the Fred Thompson Bill because there isn’t one. He’s an empty vessel for conservative hope, and nothing more.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM

BK have you got a Hillary bill you would like to discuss. Anyway, most of the time in DC nothing is a whole lot better than something.

duff65 on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

landmark conservative legislation

Is close to an oxymoron.

CK MacLeod on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Where IS the Fred anti-immigration legislation?
BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Ummmmm…here:

Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan
In the post-9/11 world, immigration is much more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, fails in a fundamental responsibility. As we take steps to secure our borders and enforce our laws, we must also ensure that our immigration laws and policies advance our national interests in a variety of areas, and that the immigration process itself is as fair, efficient, and effective as possible.

Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law

A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation’s borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:

No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.

Attrition through Enforcement . Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.

Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.

Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.

Enabling the Social Security Administration to share relevant information with immigration and law enforcement personnel in a manner that will support effective interior enforcement efforts.

Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:

End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security “regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.”

Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security’s electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.

Add to the Cost of Hiring Illegal Aliens. Deny a tax deduction to employers for the wages they pay to illegal aliens, thereby dramatically increasing the real cost of employing illegal aliens. Businesses that do not play by the rules should not be rewarded under our tax system.

Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers (”coyotes”), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.

Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.

Improving the Legal Immigration Process
The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation’s interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:

Maximize Program Efficiency. Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. This can be accomplished by hiring more personnel at Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.

Enhanced Reporting. Improve reporting to the government by businesses that rely on temporary workers so that the government can track whether the visa holder remains employed.

Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country, are willing to learn the English language, and want to assimilate.

Reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).

Eliminate the diversity visa lottery.
English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.

Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.

Is that detailed enough?

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I could’ve just provided the link, but I like the dramatic affect.

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Is that detailed enough?

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Yes. Too bad it isn’t legislation because Fred just thought it up for his campaign rhetoric.

It’s a great speech. All of Fred’s speeches are great. They’re also all made AFTER he squandered his chance to fight for and implement them.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Um. I’m gonna have to check my schedule for that one. Was it too much to ask for a link?

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Is that detailed enough?

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

It’s not very detailed at all, actually. Most of the bullet points can be summarized as “try harder” or “do better” without many actual policy proposals. There’s a lot of words here, but not a lot of substance. He’s an ex-Seantor. He should be able to do better than this.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Fred is objectively right

anyone who says otherwise is not to be trusted as an analyst

Drunk Report on January 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I don’t understand you. Why do you waste your time pretending to intiate discussion when your mind is dead set already. Every time someone answers you here with what you have requested, you retort with the same old spin. Dude. We get it. You have nothing new to add.

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Yes. Too bad it isn’t legislation because Fred just thought it up for his campaign rhetoric.

It’s a great speech. All of Fred’s speeches are great. They’re also all made AFTER he squandered his chance to fight for and implement them.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Ohhhh! I seeee. Okay then.

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Drama, man! Must have drama!

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM

They’re also all made AFTER he squandered his chance to fight for and implement them.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

In fairness to Fred, and Rudy et al; politically who was thinking about immigration pre-9/11? Secondly, the idea of a representative is that the represent the people’s interests. When did the people come to a collective concern about immigration?

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM

It’s not the first time Fred has weighed on in Heller, so he can’t be accused of pandering. He’s saying what he actually believes.

Shock-o-rama! I think it has been so long since we had a candidate do that that we don’t really know what to do with one when we meet him.

TX Mom on January 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Fred in the White House helps to ensure that all of our 2nd Amendment rights continue to remain protected. He will appoint judges that remain true to the origianal intent of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.

azcop on January 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM

In fairness to Fred, and Rudy et al; politically who was thinking about immigration pre-9/11?

Actually, Rudy was.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM

*Nobody talks about the Fred Thompson Bill because there isn’t one. He’s an empty vessel for conservative hope, and nothing more.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Even if this were true I’d rather vote for an empty conservative vessel than a vessel full of liberalism and false conservatism!

melachiro on January 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM

He’s an ex-Seantor. He should be able to do better than this.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Not quite sure what you mean. Fred’s plan is as detailed, if not more so, than any of the other candidates. So I’m not sure what specifically you have in mind. Maybe you could provide one of those “specifics” that was not covered in the bullets.

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Actually, Rudy was.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I’ll be. Color me both shocked and impressed.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Sincere, straight forward, witty, he always seems to know where to place the next foot……and the Reps sleep through it.

There is no other candidate I think is better for 1600. Unfortunately everyone else is standing on the street corner waiting for the next car wreck.

I don’t know what it will take to get people to start paying attention. Maybe a Johnson moment where he shows everyone his appendectomy scar.

Limerick on January 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Big S, this is from Rudy’s site. It covers far less than what Fred covers.

CONTROL OUR NATION’S BORDERS

Bring Order To The Border: Congress authorized the construction of 700 miles of border fence in 2006 and then appropriated over $1.1 billion for border security. However, Washington has only built a few dozen miles of fence. Rudy will commit to building the fence – both physical and high-tech – now, while deploying and maintaining 20,000 Border Patrol agents and measuring their progress toward ending illegal immigration. It is important to accomplish this goal in order to preserve and expand legal immigration.

Implement BorderStat: Rudy will propose BorderStat to bring accountability to measuring the progress in securing our borders. BorderStat is modeled after the Mayor’s successful New York City program CompStat which helped reduce the city’s crime by imposing accountability. It will use key indicators to identify both effective enforcement strategies that demonstrate tangible results and areas of the border where we are failing so the failures can be immediately corrected.

IDENTIFY ALL NON-CITIZENS ENTERING AND EXITING AMERICA

Issue A Single, Tamper-Proof Biometric ID Card: Rudy will propose the Secure Authorized Foreign Entry Card (SAFE Card) to be uniform for all non-citizen workers and students, utilizing tamper-proof and biometric features for secure identification.

Create A Single National Database Of Foreigners: It is critical to America’s security to have one national database of non-citizens in our country. Rudy will propose consolidating all existing databases into one so a foreigner’s legal status can be quickly checked.

Identify Those Who Have Left The Country With Biometric Check-out System: Forty-five percent of illegal immigrants in America came into our country legally but overstayed their visas. Rudy believes we need a biometric check-out system so we know who has left America and can focus enforcement on those who remain.

DEPORT CRIMINAL ALIENS

Deport All Illegal Aliens Who Commit A Felony: America currently only deports 14% of the roughly 300,000 foreigners who commit crimes in our country. Rudy will commit to deporting all foreign individuals who have abused their privilege of staying in the United States.

AMERICANIZE IMMIGRANTS

Require All Immigrants to Truly Read, Write & Speak English: Rudy believes immigration and Americanization go hand-in-hand. As President, he will propose that all immigrants who want to become citizens must truly read, write, and speak English and learn American civics. For the American experiment to succeed, we need a common language.

This last paragraph in particular seems to fall under the same criticism of “try harder” that you leveled at Fred.

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Fred’s the man. I was wondering if he needs a carry conceal license for his left and right arm…they are dangerous weapons, just ask the candidates he’s been smacking around :)

spacekicker on January 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM

It’s not very detailed at all, actually. Most of the bullet points can be summarized as “try harder” or “do better” without many actual policy proposals. There’s a lot of words here, but not a lot of substance. He’s an ex-Seantor. He should be able to do better than this

Oh nonsense. Most of what he wants to do doesn’t actually require legislation, like hiring more Border Patrol agents and folks to process legal applications at ICE. Starting construction on the wall doesn’t require legislation either. It’s not a matter of “try harder”. it’s a matter of “do what I have the power to do”. That’s a smart thing no matter what the subject.

Unless you believe that enacting more legislation and creating more bureaucracy is a good thing for a Senator to do. Me, I prefer my Senators enact as little legislation as possible.

Jimmie on January 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM

He’s saying what he actually believes.

No wonder he’s so low in the polls. The voters are still holding out for Chauncey Gardener.

snickelfritz on January 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM

An example:

Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country, are willing to learn the English language, and want to assimilate.

How? That’s a nice goal to have, but it’s just that: a goal with no specific ideas as to how it should be done. I can’t evaluate Fred’s proposal without hearing such details, and in most cases, he does not provide them. He does a good job of splitting up his major goals into a lot of little ones in order to make his proposals sound meatier, but there’s really not a lot of substance there when you go looking to figure out exactly what he would do to achieve his goals. Perhaps he should have gotten a bit more practice writing bills while he was in the Senate.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Right back at ya’ Big S:

Require All Immigrants to Truly Read, Write & Speak English: Rudy believes immigration and Americanization go hand-in-hand. As President, he will propose that all immigrants who want to become citizens must truly read, write, and speak English and learn American civics. For the American experiment to succeed, we need a common language.

How? That’s a nice goal to have, but it’s just that: a goal with no specific ideas as to how it should be done. I can’t evaluate Fred’s Rudy’s proposal without hearing such details,

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Being a Fredhead I think he will do much better in SC than the MSM is letting on. If he doens’t win it will hurt everyone.

HotAirExpert on January 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM

FRED-on Apply directly to the White House
FRED-on Apply directly to the White House
FRED-on Apply directly to the White House

ReaganConservative3 on January 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM

HaHa! Great One

I got my laugh of the day

GO FRED!!

atxcowgirl on January 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM

How? That’s a nice goal to have, but it’s just that: a goal with no specific ideas as to how it should be done. I can’t evaluate Fred’s Rudy’s proposal without hearing such details,

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Oh, no doubt Rudy’s policy is vague in some repects. I expect all of the candidates to leave a lot of details out due to the limitations of a campaign’s policy resources. I’m just tired of the Fredheads claiming that their candidate has more detailed proposals to deal with all of the problems this nation faces, when in reality they’re just more finely partitioned lists of goals. It’s good that he recognizes the different sides of the issues, but these policy outlines do not really rise to the level of “plans.”

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Lobbyist and Lawyers for Freddie, lets put some more pork and lawsuits back into Washington. ;)

We can never have enough..

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Fred is dead!

Fred can’t even beat Ron Paul.

Time to drop out Fred the American public has seen through you!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Personally I blame Ron Paul for Fred’s crappy numbers.

I mean, when the racist libertarian crank is beating you by 70%+ in every state except Iowa thus far, you have to wonder why people would take you seriously.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Oh look. Spin. Let’s debunk it, shall we?

Iowa: Beat Paul by 3%
NH: Lost to Paul by 7% I’m going on record now. I am TOTALLY sick of p*$$y conservatives. Either vote for the only conservative of the lot…or stop calling yourself a conservative.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Marry me.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Ugh, something happened there. Let’s try again.

Personally I blame Ron Paul for Fred’s crappy numbers.

I mean, when the racist libertarian crank is beating you by 70%+ in every state except Iowa thus far, you have to wonder why people would take you seriously.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Oh look. Spin. Let’s debunk it, shall we?

Iowa: Beat Paul by 3%
NH: Lost to Paul by 7%
Michigan: Lost to Paul by 2%
Wyoming: Beat Paul by 25%

Game over. Please try again.

I’m going on record now. I am TOTALLY sick of p*$$y conservatives. Either vote for the only conservative of the lot…or stop calling yourself a conservative.

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Marry me.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Big S, this is from Rudy’s site. It covers far less than what Fred covers.

Weight of Glory on January 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Wow, Rudy’s plan sucks! He doesn’t even mention workplace enforcement. It’s no wonder the guy is so unpopular.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM

a messianic shot

Brilliant Bryan! You are my new man-crush.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Once again, Fred farts, Hot Air blogs it, and the Fredheads breathlessly follow the post with 200 comments.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Once again, Fred farts, Hot Air blogs it, and the Fredheads breathlessly follow the post with 200 comments.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Tommy you are sick.

duff65 on January 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Wow, Rudy’s plan sucks!

But let’s bring this back to the topic at hand. While Fred is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter and always has been, Rudy tried to sue America’s firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy. To barrow a term that has long been popular with Mitt and Rudy supporters, Rudy is a scumbag.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM

tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Welcome aboard! Glad to have you with us!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Once again, Fred farts, Hot Air blogs it, and the Fredheads breathlessly follow the post with 200 comments.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Don’t you have any child molestors to defend? Maybe an old woman to sue because her daughter downloaded an MP3? Go on, make John Edwards proud.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Fred is not the Messiah; nor is Mitt for that fact.

It seems both offer/espouse enough conservative positions they would be suitable candidates for President. These gentlemen are not divided by the Grand Canyon. I am not certain why some wish to make it so.

MarkB on January 16, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Once again, Fred farts, Hot Air blogs it, and the Fredheads breathlessly follow the post with 200 comments.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM

I see, so you think that the 2nd amendment is equivalent to a fart, huh? While normally I would say this tells us everything we need to know about you, Tommylotto, in this case we already knew far more than we ever wanted to.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Wow, Rudy’s plan sucks! He doesn’t even mention workplace enforcement. It’s no wonder the guy is so unpopular.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Rudy has talked about workplace enforcement. It is not fair quite yet to start workplace enforcement. First you have to close the border, issue all non-citizens a tamper-proof biometric IDs, establish an easy to use, reliable and mandatory worker verification system — then you can start workplace enforcement. A crackdown now would be unrealistic and unfair to small businesses. But that never stopped Fred from pandering to the xenophobes.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

I mean, when the racist libertarian crank is beating you by 70%+ in every state except Iowa thus far, you have to wonder why people would take you seriously.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Dude, go peddle that snake oil somewhere else. You can take your statistical analysis and shove it through the light shining over Fred Thompson’s head. That bit of statistical data doesn’t say anything about FRED! It says a lot about the current crop of GOP voters though! Whoa!
/*in the famous words of Wayne from Wayne’s World… SCHWING!!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Where you not so close that the aroma brought you here as well?

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

It is not fair quite yet to start workplace enforcement.

The states that have passed laws on it do not agree with your generous views.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Check out that vid Big S put up. I’m not a Rudy guy, but it’s impressive. Especially re: Cold war/political parties and subsequent restructuring. I can easily understand watching that why he is so compelling to those that know him.

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Oh look. Spin. Let’s debunk it, shall we?

Iowa: Beat Paul by 3%
NH: Lost to Paul by 7%
Michigan: Lost to Paul by 2%
Wyoming: Beat Paul by 25%

Game over. Please try again.

I was talking about vote tally between the two. Sum the Paul and Thompson actual vote count, and Paul’s number tends to be 70% greater than Thompson’s.

Ex: Michigan:

Paul: 54,434
Thompson: 32,125

Divide Paul by Thompson: 1.69%.

Paul got 69% more votes than Thompson.

New Hampshire:

Paul: 18,303.
Thompson: 2,886

Paul got over 600% more votes.

Iowa:

Paul: 11,817
Thompson: 15,904

Paul got 74% of Thompson’s vote. Thompson beat Paul by around 35%.

Paul currently has more votes than Thompson. Ron Paul is thus more popular than Fred Thompson.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Where Were you not so close that the aroma brought you here as well?

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

For clarity sake.

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

“I am TOTALLY sick of p*$$y conservatives. Either vote for the only conservative of the lot…or stop calling yourself a conservative.”
–tickleddragon on January 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

On another forum I vented: stop sucking on your pacifier, man up and support the only true conservative in the race.

http://www.fred08.com

Any proposals?

redneck hippie on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

While Fred is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter and always has been, Rudy tried to sue America’s firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy.

Once again, the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about the manufacture and sale of firearms.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

A crackdown now would be unrealistic and unfair to small businesses. But that never stopped Fred from pandering to the xenophobes.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Yep. Xenophobic, racist Americans want to kick illegal immigrants out. You hit the nail right on the head of 99% of us here, tommy. You’ve outed us. Maybe you can sue us for hate crimes!

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Fred! Needs to jump up and down on the DOJ brief, or gun owners may start bailing out of the GOP.

Nobody talks about the Fred Thompson Bill because there isn’t one.
BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Fred loves the Bill of Rights. It says Congress shall make no law.

mad saint jack on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Rudy has talked about workplace enforcement

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

I’ve seen every debate and Rudy has never once supported workplace enforcement.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Ah. Actual total percents in elections are meaningless. What we should analyze are extrapolated percentages that help with our hatred of certain candidates. Then we drop into pro-candidate threads and pull those statistics out of our posteriors for the simple sake of…what, exactly?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Ok, let’s try some basic civics… Congress creates the laws, the President presides over the Executive branch that executes the laws.

The laws already exist, we just can’t get the people in charge of executing the laws to… (wait for it)… EXECUTE THE LAWS!

We don’t need more laws that may or may not get executed. We need someone who will execute the EXISTING laws first!

Am I the only one here that realizes that an active Congress is almost always a BAD thing???

dominigan on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

A really good analysis for a third grade drop out. I think I will not hire you to do my taxes.

duff65 on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

I see, so you think that the 2nd amendment is equivalent to a fart, huh? While normally I would say this tells us everything we need to know about you, Tommylotto, in this case we already knew far more than we ever wanted to.

FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

I was talking about HA’s need to make a post about everything that Fred says and does, and the Fredhead’s sycophantic delight. The 2nd is not a fart, but any retard knows that even if the 2nd is an individual right, even individual rights are subject to reasonable restrictions based upon compelling state interests. To suggest that the trial court should not have an opportunity to take evidence on all the competing interests involved is just stupid and increases the possibility that we will get an inconclusive result from the SCOTUS. I’m sure Fred knows that because he plays a lawyer on TV, but once again that doesn’t stop Fred from pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator in SC, a segment of the population that clear has too many chromosomes.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Ah. Actual total percents in elections are meaningless. What we should analyze are extrapolated percentages that help with our hatred of certain candidates. Then we drop into pro-candidate threads and pull those statistics out of our posteriors for the simple sake of…what, exactly?

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Hey, it’s not my fault that Fred “2nd, 3rd, Dead Last, or.. ah, screw it!” Thompson is getting routed by Ron Paul and basically everyone else who at least respect the position enough to genuinely fight for and earn it.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Hey, it’s not my fault that Fred “2nd, 3rd, Dead Last, or.. ah, screw it!” Thompson is getting routed by Ron Paul and basically everyone else who at least respect the position enough to genuinely fight for and earn it.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Like Rudy? Hey, how about you do the extrapolated numbers for how much he lost to Fred by? :D

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

How’s that Rudy campaign going for ya? I hear he’s doing a smash up job. How’s the weather in San Francisco, I hear it’s really hot due to global warming.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM

I’m sure Fred knows that because he plays a lawyer on TV, but once again that doesn’t stop Fred from pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator in SC, a segment of the population that clear has too many chromosomes.

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

So now you’re insulting an entire state, and by extension the South in general. You and BKennedy are two of a kind in calling yourselves conservatives. You’re both completely bigoted against the South, and make the same elitist insults about the entire population below the Mason-Dixon line that most liberals do.

Are you proud of yourself? You’re a total and complete bigot against a section of the United States because of where they live.

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Once again, the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about the manufacture and sale of firearms.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Are You Crazy??? The whole plan was to file hundreds of city lawsuits, and make the gun companies hire hundreds of lawyers, bankrupting them.

mad saint jack on January 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I don’t know what it will take to get people to start paying attention. Maybe a Johnson moment where he shows everyone his appendectomy scar.

Limerick on January 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

WOW, you’re really dating yourself with that one, ol’ timer!

But seriously folks, maybe if Jeri walked down a SC street topless then Fred! could get some new questions asked him by the media.
(Instead of (1)-are you going to attack McCain? (2) When are you gonna attack McCain? (3) Why hasn’t your campaign caught on with conservatives? (4) Will you drop out if you lose this state?)

omnipotent on January 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Fred loves the Bill of Rights. It says Congress shall make no law.

mad saint jack on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Numbers 2-10 ;)

Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Are You Crazy??? The whole plan was to file hundreds of city lawsuits, and make the gun companies hire hundreds of lawyers, bankrupting them.

mad saint jack on January 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Let’s look at that Amendment again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nope, nothing about the economic viability of firearms manufacturers.

Big S on January 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

So, how’s Rudy’s strategy working out for him scumbag Lawyerboy?

Is he gonna lisp his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

omnipotent on January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Like Rudy? Hey, how about you do the extrapolated numbers for how much he lost to Fred by? :D

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Madi, wow, I can just sit back and watch, you keep taking my lines. How the heck did I not notice? My bad…

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Hey, it’s not my fault that Fred “2nd, 3rd, Dead Last, or.. ah, screw it!” Thompson is getting routed by Ron Paul and basically everyone else who at least respect the position enough to genuinely fight for and earn it.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Don’t blame us that the USA has more nazis than conservatives.

omnipotent on January 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM

How’s that Rudy campaign going for ya? I hear he’s doing a smash up job. How’s the weather in San Francisco, I hear it’s really hot due to global warming.

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM

You don’t get to gloat until your guy starts doing any better. We all feel pain. Hope burns eternal in FL and on Super Duper Tuesday.

P.S. I’m not in SF, I was born in Long Beach, raised in Arcadia and live in Sherman Oaks. I’m SoCal baby!!!

tommylotto on January 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.