|
Is Fred a fraud?
Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star Ledger has published pro-amnesty-leaning comments Fred Thompson made in 2006 on Hannity and Colmes. Portraying Thompson as a Beltway lobbyist who got elected to the Senate by posing as a good old boy, Mulshine writes that his new immigration policy “sounds tough. But last year, back when he wasn’t a candidate, ol’ Fred’s position on immigration was as soft as the leather of a Gucci loafer.” Mulshine calls Thompson a fraud. Mulshine is correct to bring out Thompson’s earlier statements on immigration, which I believe VFR also quoted earlier in 2007 (is there any top-tier GOP candidate in this campaign who has not reversed himself big time?). However, I think Mulshine is being too condemnatory of Thompson. While we can’t know exactly what brought Thompson to his new position on immigration, the thoroughness and detail of the policy suggest that it is based on a thoughtful consideration of the issue that was absent in the remarks he made in 2006. Therefore I am inclined to describe his new position not as a fraud but as the result of a genuine change of outlook leading him to the conclusion that these positions are good for the country as well as a winner for him politically. If someone has an unfocused, lazy, conventional stand on an issue, as Thompson has had in the past on immigration, and then focuses on the issue and takes a stronger position, that doesn’t show that he’s a fraud. It shows he’s taking seriously a thing he had not taken seriously before. Now, if Thompson became president, would he push for the platform he’s adopted as a candidate? We can’t know that. But he has adopted it, and he is articulating it pretty strongly, which suggests that he’s committed to it. The main thing for us is that there is now a top-tier candidate who is saying “no amnesty”; who is calling for attrition to remove illegals (and in the process strongly criticizing the Bushite false choice between mass deportation and legalization which Thompson himself was thoughtlessly mouthing in 2006); who is calling for punishing sanctuary cities; and who is calling for the elimination of immigration categories that would result in a reduction in legal immigration by more than 25 percent. By today’s liberal standards, this is radically conservative stuff. Thompson is running on this position, and voter support for him will be seen as popular support for that position. Even if he is elected and turns out to be fraud, the cause of immigration control and reduction will have been advanced as never before.
David B. writes:
As I have told you, I am from Fred Thompson’s home county. I know people who knew him when he lived here. When he first said that he was “testing the waters,” I wrote you that Thompson could be a politician who goes in our direction because it was in his best interest to do so. He has obviously realized that the only way he can overtake Giuliani and Romney is by opposing amnesty and illegal immigration in a major way. Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 29, 2007 11:04 PM | Send Email entry |