Anyone else out there also think Fred Thompson would be a good President?

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

Thompson has one principal list on his official campaign website--federalism. Looks good, sounds good, appears to be a move in the right direction.

Then I look at his record and I see vote after vote in favor of decidely non-federalist legislation.

So what's a schmuck like me to believe. Until proven wrong I'll watch what he did and pay no attention to what he says he will do.
 
Federalism refers to a politcal/governing system where the power to govern is divided between a centralized national government, and individual state governments. The result is a federation of states.

When Waitone says Fred Thompson talks about federalism, but then votes anti-federalist, I believe he means Thompson is voting for things that greatly favor increased centralized government, while removing power from the states.

Remember under our Constitution, we have a federal system. And powers not specifically enumerated to be part of the federal government are supposed to be reserved for the states.

The No Child Left Behind law would be a prime example of anti-Federalist legislation that Thompson supported, despite saying he is a federalist. Medicare Reform (the drug benefit program) is another example. No where in the Constitution is the federal government specifically given reign over education and social welfare, yet the federal government has usurped this power from the states.
 
Unregistered, regarding No Child Left Behind (probably the same argument for Medicare):

Isn't their power limited to, for all intents and purposes, cutting off Federal funding? You know, our tax dollars will not go to a State that doesn't meet the Federal standards? No more, no less?

If the answer is "yes", why shouldn't the Federal government be allowed to set standards for what they spend our money on nationwide?

Also, if the answer is "yes", there is a sure-fire way for those States, who don't want the Federal government meddling in their educational system, to remedy the situation - don't accept or ask for Federal funding?

If you and I were to become partners in an endeavor, I'd expect you to have some input in the outcome.

If the answer is "no", COMPLETELY disregard what I said!:o
 
Last edited:
damn sight better than Billary, Obama or Edwards. I'm from down Edwards way, folks in Seneca, SC don't care for him, even tho he was born there. but then upstate SC is republican stronghold.
 
RDak,

Your question is a moot point, because Congress is not granted power over education by the Constutition in the first place. They should not be funding it. They should not be collecting taxes to fund it. Education is a state issue, not a federal issue. Everything doesn't have to be a federal issue.

The bottom line is that powers not granted to the Congress are reserved for the states.
 
square-large-fredimao.jpg
 
Since the No Child Left Behind legislation was written by the Massachussets murder, what does everyone expect? If Fred really wanted a great VP candidate he would talk to J.C. Watts.
 
Frank J. says,

Fred Thompson's comprehensive education plan: Be smart or get a whup'n.

Fred Thompson's long term plan to secure our borders is to destroy all other countries. He destroyed two this morning using only a six iron.

Four our of five dentists agree: You should avoid getting punched in the mouth by Fred Thompson. The fifth dentist hates you.

Fred Thompson promises that his foreign policy will be like a good action movie: Full of cool one-liners and explosions.

Fred Thompson can improve a floundering economy simply by glaring at it menacingly.

Fred Thompson's sheer willpower is so strong it can microwave a burrito.

When Fred Thompson is elected President, he'll be the tallest American President ever, beating Abraham Lincoln by an inch and Jimmy Carter with his fist.

In the series Law & Order, Fred Thompson plays the title character.
Click to expand...
 
At least he talks about federalism, but he's trying to have it both ways with a couple of things...

And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.

It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals.
Click to expand...

Why is it appropriate to run our money through Washington before we get it back? He says that like it's an axiom or something, but it is not at all clear to some of us that running money through Washington adds value. I'm more with the Republican Revolutionaries of '94 and Ron Paul of today: abolish the department of education.

Why does he think that the feds will hand over money without trying to dictate exactly what happens to the money? Handing over tax money is no fun at all for a politician if he can't use it to buy control. I thought we Paul supporters were supposed to be the hopelessly naive ones, but this is ridiculous.
 
and also...

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets.
Click to expand...

That's the ONLY mention of interstate commerce? How can that be? Is he really a fan of federalism? Does he know that under current law, carrying a gun too near to a school is interstate commerce? Does he know that growing your own cannabis plant or building your own machine gun is interstate commerce? Does he know that the feds banned partial birth abortions because those are interstate commerce? Does he know that we have had court cases about whether rape is interstate commerce, and about whether indigenous California toads are interstate commerce?

His only comment on the whole thing is that the commerce clause is good for promoting free trade? I'm sticking with Ron Paul for now, thanks.
 
Why is it appropriate to run our money through Washington before we get it back? He says that like it's an axiom or something, but it is not at all clear to some of us that running money through Washington adds value. I'm more with the Republican Revolutionaries of '94 and Ron Paul of today: abolish the department of education.
Click to expand...

Publius, you are absolutely correct. Sending money to Washington, letting the bureaucrats take their cut, and then sending whats left back to the states is ridiculous. The Dept of Education should be disbanded, and the states should have complete control over public education (if there is going to be public education).
 
Commerce clause does not mean Feds can regulate everything

I recognize that changes in transportation and communication have created legitimate federal interests where none previously existed. My votes reflect that. But the idea that the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate anything effecting commerce, no matter how remote, hopefully, is something we can all agree is not acceptable.
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.164 Jun 3, 2007
Click to expand...

So it's promote closing the Dept. of Education or Fred isn't opposed to the abuse of the Commerce Clause? C'mon.......
 
I went to the Greenville,S.C. coming out party at the Marriott to feel him out.He is a good solid candidate.Strong on 2nd,against same sex marriage,etc..He explained his personal life,and talked about family.My biggest like, was his talk on why this is the turning point in american history.This election will define the future of the U.S.A.. He made some very good points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top