I was talking with my good friend Nicholas Romero, whom FR readers know as the former Managing Editor of the FlashReport. Nick was very animated after watching Thursday night’s Presidential debate. Nick’s been very passionate about this Presidential campaign season – he’s a big supporter of Fred Thompson, actually. Anyways, after talking with Nick a bit, I asked him if he would be willing to pen his “take” on the debate for FR readers. So, in Nick’s own literary style, here’s what he sent over… — Flash
Better Late Than Never
Well, this past week has been a rollercoaster. The open New Hampshire primary (they allow Democrats and Independents to vote in the Republican Primary in the Granite State) had conservative Republicans staring down the very real and undesirable prospect of a McCain nomination. However, I think New Hampshire’s surprising results have awoken the fusionist base. We do not want to see the party fall the way of the Whigs. We have caught a glimpse of the party slipping through our fingers in this presidential election and we are starting to rebel.
**There is more – click the link**
January 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Great review of the past few days.
The reason Tom McClintock, I, and the other conservative stalwarts in the legislature all rallied around Fred Thompson was what the nation has been priveleged to see in the past few days. Fred Thompson is a consistent conservative and does not shy away from his beliefs. He’s proud to be conservative – what a concept.
In contrast (other than Ron Paul’s rant on foreign policy), the low point for the debate was when Huckabee described why the Reagan coalition (which came together and elected Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -twice) is suddenly now dead.
For this conservative the choice is real clear – Fred Thompson for President.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Fred Thompson has always been the only true, consistent conservative running (outside of Duncan Hunter), who actually has a good chance of winning. The frustration among many of us conservatives has been his apparent lack of aggressiveness until now. It appears that a true statesman who does not have an ego-driven need to be the ruler of our country, is not worthy of our consideration. I guess George Washington should never have been president.
Fortunately, two or three small states along with the Main Stream Media do not determine who our next President (or candidate) is. We have a long way to go. It is like crowning the winner of the Super Bowl, when the teams have not even been decided.
It has been a foregone conclusion, by all of the pundits that Giuliani will take California. This year, with the rule change that winner takes all only in a congressional district instead of the whole state, Thompson has an excellent chance of taking many delegates. Outside of the costal areas, most of California is quite conservative.
I am watching for the MSM to be wiping egg off their collective faces on February 6, as they did last Wednesday.
Allen Wood
January 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
It’s interesting that you mention Congressman Hunter. I like his positions in virtually every respect. He has always been my second choice, but I haven’t heard anything from or about him since he took one delegate vote away from the Wyoming Primary. He didn’t even submit a list of three delegates from his own congressional district to the California Secretary of State’s office.
This is one of those pivotal moments where Congressman Duncan Hunter could really make an impact and start the Thompson campaign a snowballin’. Congressman Hunter’s campaign has been in South Carolina for a long time and he wasn’t up on stage Thursday night. He could admirably retire from the race and endorse Thompson, probably assuring an opportunity in a Thompson cabinet or for the Vice Presidency.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I liked Fred’s remarks about conservatism at the South Carolina debate the other night. Then I remembered that he supported the McPain-Feingold legislation. Too bad.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Dr. Consiglio –
I respect your position regarding the issue of campaign finance. I agree. But I think you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Are you really going to let one vote on McCain-Feingold – a vote to continue to regulate already regulated campaign financing – prevent you from supporting the most conservative (in a fusionist sense) candidate in the 2008 presidential contest?
January 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Nick-
Thanks for your thoughts.
I did not say who I was voting for one way or another- still deciding. I just said it is too bad Fred went along with McPain on this issue which I view as regulating free speech. I’d like to know why he did that.
I’d also like to know why Fred has a career rating of C on Immigration (with some D’s and F’s) from ‘Americans for Better Immigration’?
I like Fred personally and hope he keeps up the fire. He’s very likable and it can only help the conservative cause.
We all know ‘perfect’ is never on the ballot. I’d appreciate your thoughts on my questions.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Dr. Consiglio –
On McCain-Feingold, this is the best I could come up with regarding his rationale (I don’t want to attempt to speak for Senator Thompson, myself):
THOMPSON DEFENDS CAMPAIGN DONATION LIMIT
Dec 19 01:19 PM US/Eastern
By AMY LORENTZEN
Associated Press Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TKM2KO0&show_article=1&catnum=3
“CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) – Fred Thompson on Wednesday defended his support for limits on campaign contributions—a sore point among many fellow Republicans—and said rival Mitt Romney had reversed his view on the issue.
At an eastern Iowa campaign event, a man in the audience said he liked the former Tennessee senator’s conservative thinking on most issues but questioned his support for the McCain-Feingold Act. The campaign finance overhaul, which became law in 2002, caps contributions and is disliked by many in the GOP.
“A lot of my Republican colleagues still have a hard time with it—they don’t understand it and I appreciate that. But standing up, putting the government in the right place to do its job, to do things as best we can to minimize the temptation and the opportunity for corruption … is still a valid, solid, conservative concept that I stand for,” Thompson said.
A top adviser to Romney has criticized Thompson for that view, and earlier this year, Romney himself criticized another GOP rival, John McCain, for co-authoring the fundraising law.
When asked about such critics, Thompson responded, “Bring them on,” and suggested Romney and his staff need to re-examine the former Massachusetts governor’s record.
“Mitt Romney not only was for campaign reform and McCain-Feingold, he supported public financing,” Thompson said. “So, I’d love to have a little discussion with him on it.”
He added: “He’s changed his position on that just as he’s done on so many other things.”
Contribution limits were in place for many years at the $1,000 level, but Thompson said he believed that limitation was too low. He says he helped to double that amount and bring it into line with inflation. Currently, the limit on contributions is $2,300.
“The rule has been, you’ve got to have money to run in politics, but we’re not going to make the amount so high that it looks as though there is undue influence,” he said.
Thompson said he doesn’t like some provisions in the McCain-Feingold legislation, including one that limits contributions to some political organizations to the same level as individual contributions.
“That was an error. I was wrong about that, I wouldn’t do that again,” he said.
He blamed former President Clinton and political consultant Dick Morris for a windfall of soft money that he said began to corrupt the political system.
“They didn’t invent it, but they pretty much did, and they certainly perfected it, the so-called soft money deal,” Thompson said.
Instead of blowing the whistle on such corruption, he said Republicans joined up.
“We started doing the same thing, and it became a soft-money race. The little guy … got lost in the shuffle,” he said.”
On immigration, this is Senator Thompson’s full immigration plan (you’ll notice it’s quite detailed):
BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION REFORM PLAN
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
“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.”
The aim of “Americans for Better Immigration”, by their own mission statement, is to lobby, “Congress for reductions in immigration numbers.” They say, “‘Better’ immigration is lower immigration.” They don’t make a distinction between illegal and legal immigration. They want less immigration, period. I fundamentally oppose that position, as I believe one of the basic tenets of our political culture is that which was expressed in Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus.” I can make the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. I want none of the former and plenty of the latter. It’s quite possible you disagree and I respect that.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Nick-
Thanks for your diligence. Fred seems to get it on ILLEGAL Immigration.
Guess it does not matter now that Fred dropped out today. While I can understand collegiality among Senators, I hope Fred does NOT throw his support to McCain. If he does, Fred would then be very disingenuous in his purported conservative views on ILLEGAL Immigration etc.
Thanks again. Who are you supporting now?