Fred! F'n Thompson: "Scrap This Bill"

Frd Thompson, assuming he runs (a likelihood, but not a certainty), continues to make all the right moves. Blogging at RedState:

With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.

Huzzah.

At this point my only problem with enthusiastically endorsing Thompson is that I'm not totally convinced he'll run, and if he doesn't, we've got to still pick from the rest.

RedState also says there really is no "bill" yet -- just a draft still being worked on by lawyers. So there's still time to tank it.

And on the rest: Maybe it's time to give those second-tier candidates a fresh look.

Good stuff at Hot Air.

“Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it,” said Tancredo. “The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

“If Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place,” quipped Tancredo.

I hope Allah lays off mocking Tancredo from this point forward.

I'd prefer a more serious candidate pushing this issue. Duncan Hunter says he himself built the San Diego border wall (he means that not in the Al Gore invented the internet sense, but that he was largely responsible for it).

I'm going to look up his exact position on this. I assume he's made enforcement noises, as most candidates have (noises only, for the most part), but I want to see if he's serious about it.

Update: Seems mostly like noises only -- his website lists his principles and priorities, but fails to include a single statement (among 25 numbered points) regarding immigration and amnesty.

He has an opening to break out, though. He needs to do something to elevate himself, to separate himself, to make him stand out from the liberal guys.

Romney provided a confusing answer at the debate. If he clarifies in a good way, he's a possibility.

Due to Rudy's previous wild-eyed enthusiasm for illegal immigrant workers, plus his constant fudging on the fence (after mentioning a "fence," he always adds "a technological fence," a formuation designed, I think, to suggest he wants a low-tech (real) fence as well as a high-tech (fake, virtual, useless) fence, but which I think really means he onlu wants the latter), I hereby retract any support for him.

If he changes his position on this -- strongly, dramatically, and with no wiggle room, committing to border security as an iron-clad promise -- I'll reconsider. For now -- given that the President and only the President can certify/dishonestly claim the border is secure in order to activate those "triggers" for citizenship -- I do not have enough faith in him to pursue the enforcement policy. We need a president who will. Unless Rudy flip-flops and comes out swinging for the fences (ahem), which he won't, he's dead to me as a candidate. I can't trust him to be the only line separating the US from Mexico.

So for me it's either Duncan Hunter (assuming he's pro-security-first, which he seems to hint at, but who knows) or Fred (assuming he's smart enough to embrace the security-first position) or no one at all.

Maybe I'll vote third-party for Tancredo. Or even Ron Paul.

Whichever. I'm not voting for anyone supporting this sell-out, and no, I am no longer worried by the threat of a Hillary! or Obama presidency enough to carry the water for the Republican Party. We've done the go-along-to-get-along thing for years, and it has earned us merely greater contempt and scorn and nonresponsiveness from our "leaders."

That's it for me. I don't give a fuck if Hillary is President. At least if a Democrat is pursuing liberal policies I don't like, I'm not responsible for that, and the conservative movement isn't damaged further by acquiescing to them.

If our Republican congressmen and President are carrying out the Democrats' agenda anyway, I say give the keys of government to the Democrats so that at least they'll be responsible for the consequences.

Sometimes a party needs to be brought to the brink of extinction before it changes its policies. After six years of Bush and the godawful overspending Republican Congresses, I think that time is just about now.

We're probably going to lose anyway. Might as well make a statement about it.

Thanks to "someone" for the Red State/Thompson links.

Great news on Thompson-- again, I just worry that I'll get my hopes up about him and then he won't run.

posted by Ace at 08:10 PM

| Access Comments