Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > October > 18 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhat Fred said: A transcript of Thursday’s interview
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
After the noon event in Kennesaw, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson held a fund-raising luncheon with state lawmakers in downtown Atlanta.
Afterwards, in the 36th floor offices of Tom Bell, CEO of Cousins Properties, Thompson had time for a 10-minute, two-topic interview. The subjects were illegal immigration, and concerns of evangelical voters.
Here’s the transcript that served as a basis for Friday’s AJC story.
The first question was about immigration, and its impact on the South.
Said Thompson:
“Illegal immigration is a problem all over this country. I don’t think it’s limited to just Southern states. People are concerned that the politicians kind of announced one day that there are ‘X’ million people that have come here, and are illegal, and there’s more on the way.
“And there’s basically nothing that we’re doing to stop it.
“We have essentially open borders. I think that came as a surprise to a lot of people, and there’s been a reaction to that. There was a reaction to that bill that they tried to pass. It was a bad bill.
“And so now we’re struggling with securing the border, which has got to be the first thing that we do — securing the border, which is part of enforcing the law, as the first fundamental step we’ve got to take.”
(Read the rest on the jump below.)
Are you talking about a physical wall or electronic surveillance?
“All of the above, plus I think the border patrol has still got to be enhanced. The numbers have been increased somewhat, but it appears that we need more. Whatever it is we need we’re going to have to have.
“It’s not a matter of a lack of technology. We used to say, we can go to the moon but we can’t do this? It’s been a long time since we’ve gone to the moon, and we’re telling the American people that we can’t secure our own borders? Certainly, we can. Obviously, we can.
“Electronic means is a part of that. The wall is a part of that. There’s several hundred miles already on the books, that are supposed to have been built. And we just need to get about doing that.”
And the 12 million or so who are already here?
“If you secure the borders, stop luring people here with sanctuary cities, with in-state tuition treatment for illegal immigrants and other things of that nature, if you’ll help these employers do more to identify illegals, with an E-verify system that will allow them to quickly and electronically do that, with the help of the federal government, you will address the problem by attrition in large measure.
“They set up a false choice — either we get giant busloads of people tomorrow, and round them all up, or we have to grant amnesty. Attrition by enforcement is what makes the most sense.”
Do you favor boosting penalties on employers?
“I don’t know that you have to boost penalties on anyone if they know that the law is going to be enforced. I think the issue now has to do more with enforcement than it has to do with the size of the penalties.
“No one wants to have a penalty levied against them. That’s a stigma and bad for business.”
You’re going to talk to the Values Voter Summit in Washington. You’ve had people question your church-going habits, your faith. James Dobson and such. What do you say to them?
“Everybody has their critics. And everybody has things coming at them from different directions. I’m no different there. I point to my record.
“I am a consistent conservative. Over eight years of service at the national level, dealing with national issues. I have been a consistent tax-cutter, a budget balancer — which we did not long after I got elected. Welfare reform. Strong national defense, and 100 percent voting record with regard to pro-life issues.
“I’m a strong believer that a source of a lot of the problems in this country has to do with the judiciary, and that we need strong federal judges who will apply the constitution and the laws of this country and not make it up as they go along, according to their own personal dictates and desire to change social policy.
“I think that underlies a lot of the difficulties that we have, in regard to social and religious decisions that have been made over the last several years.
“My record is consistent on that. While a lot of people are saying a lot of the same things regarding these issues, certainly some are not.”
Is a discussion of the strength of your beliefs fair game?
“I think it’s fair to discuss. I don’t have any problem with discussing any of that. I’m a person of conviction. I’m a person of faith. I’ve been blessed in many ways. I’m aware of those blessings.
“I have received the worst tragedy that a man can have in his life. [This is a reference to the death of his grown daughter.] I’ve received the greatest blessings. I have been a father at a very young age. I’m now the father of a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old.
“You learn from that what’s important and what’s not. You learn the importance of God in your life, and the need to try to live your life in a way that your loved ones will be proud of.
“If you’re right with the man upstairs, and you’re right with those who love you, and those who you love, then everything else will take care of itself.”
At the airport, someone in the audience asked if you regretted the lobbying work you did for an abortions rights group. Do you?
“No, I don’t. I was practicing law, and this was a client of a big firm. They asked me to help out on a couple matters.
“Now, [the same abortion rights group is] out there trying to defeat me because I went to the United States Senate and voted against them for eight straight years, on everything that came up — whether it be federal funding for abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be partial-birth abortion or any of those issues that they may have been interested in.”
“[Supreme Court] Chief Justice John Roberts was asked similar questions about clients of his law firm, and he pointed out that, in our country, don’t confuse the lawyer with the client. And I don’t think most people make that mistake.”
Services »
Comments
By edwardthompson
October 18, 2007 7:31 PM | Link to this
At least Fred admits he lobbied for them now. At first he denied the whole thing before he was reminded about it. Terry Schiavo? Don’t remember. Drilling in the Everglades? That’s an issue?
WHAT A DUD!
By Carismar
October 18, 2007 7:57 PM | Link to this
Certain Democrats keep referring to certain Republicans as duds…and those are the Republicans who manage to get elected.
By bill blaston
October 18, 2007 8:37 PM | Link to this
This man will be our next president. Democrats and crazy “Rs” may criticize him, but the answers above show what is behind this man and that is a person oc character, values, and integrity.
I will be working hard for his elections. He best reflects my values and is the best candidate to defeat Ms. Rodham.
By Jack from Cobb
October 18, 2007 10:45 PM | Link to this
I’m a Republican who thinks he’s a DUD too. I was excited about him early this year, but face it…he’s been a disappointment. I’m leaning to Romney now. It’s a race between Rudy and Mitt now and I can’t support a liberal like Rudy.
By Ron
October 18, 2007 11:44 PM | Link to this
But you can support a liberal like Romney, who has been just as pro-choice on abortion and pro-gay rights as the liberal Rudy the conservatives are abandoning. And Romney’s been known to trash Saint Reagan. It’s been said many times that the base of the GOP doesn’t have a dog in this fight and I still contend that to be the case. Huckabe has no chance and Brownback’s dropping out of the race tomorrow.
This video at YouTube of Romney debating Ted Kennedy should tell you all you need to know about his conservative credentials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Either he’s a liberal posing as a conservative or he’s a flip-flopper. Which is it?
By Craig
October 19, 2007 7:21 AM | Link to this
Fred is a dud. I am a conservative and I approve this message.
By Jim J
October 19, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Look, I understand the writers of this column are Republicans and Georgia is a Republican state. But what is your justification for quoting at length from a Fred Thompson rally and not from any Democratic rallies that have been in Georgia? I realize our electoral votes have no chance of going to the Dem side, but doesn’t professionalism come into play at all in these decisions?
By Jerry
October 19, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson is as dull as Al Gore and not even half as intelligent. If the Democratic primary is sewed up by primary time, I’m crossing over and voting for Rudy, the only Repub I could stomach, in spite of his support for Bush’s bloody boondoggle in Iraq.
By Ron
October 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Jerry:
I did what you’re talking about in 2000. Gore had the Dem nomination locked up and I crossed over and voted for McCain because I thought the GOP was propping up an empty suit in Bush because of his last name. McCain had the “Straight Talk Express” etc. so he was palatable. Now, McCain’s true colors have come through and I think he’s nuts. But he still would have been better than the disaster of the last 6 years.
That said, I may do the cross-over thing again, but I’ll vote for Romney because I think he has the least chance of the top GOP candidates at knocking off Hillary. He’s from Massachusetts where he instituted a form of universal healthcare, he’s Mormon which won’t go over well anywhere but Utah and Idaho, and because he’s gone from one extreme to the other on so many key issues (see YouTube video link above). Rudy (AKA Mr. 9/11) is scary and he could win, which would mean more of the same bs we’ve gotten from Bush.
Some Dem said recently that if Rudy is the nominee, everyone in America will know every detail of his personal life. Now he’s just America’s mayor and mentions 9/11 probably 100 times in every speech. But once America gets to know the real Rudy, his marital history, the fact that his kids hate him … that 33 percent still supporting GWB will scatter like cockroaches to a third-party candidate or just stay home on election day.
So basically what I’m saying is that tsunami even a lot of Republicans are predicting next year is coming thanks to George Walker Bush and his war and other assorted assaults on the Constitution. It’s been a tough 6 years, but I do appreciate the fact that he’s probably put the Dems back in control of Congress for the next generation by taking his party so far to the right that only a 30 percent minority feel comfortable with the GOP (contrary to Rove’s goal of a permanent GOP majority). He was supposed to be a “Compassionate Conservative” and a “Uniter Not a Divider.” If he’d held true to those standards, maybe things would have worked out better for him and the GOP.
By Will Jones
October 19, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
The curse does not causeless come.
By jack
October 19, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
From Michael Medved:
On Wednesday, Senator Thompson spent a half hour answering friendly questions on my radio show. If you read a transcript of his remarks, they’ll look perfectly credible, articulate and astute. But if you listen to the tape of the actual interview, it’s startling to note how disengaged, bored, flaccid and tired the Senator sounds. Instead of relishing the opportunity to connect with several million listeners, Thompson came across like a guy forced to complete a necessary but onerous chore. No presidential candidate in recent history has ever succeeded with this low an energy level.
By d.a. king
October 19, 2007 6:43 PM | Link to this
Attrition of the illegal alien population over time through enforcement of the laws and secure borders? HOLY COW! This makes way too much sense - look for the open borders/illegal alien lobby to begin heavy attacks on this guy!
FRED “GETS IT”! HOORAY!
By d.a. king
October 19, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this
Medved is an amnesty again type…it seems that he takes some offense at the logic here. The attacks have already begun!
By LWG
October 19, 2007 9:12 PM | Link to this
Grandpa Fred is about as exciting and inspiring as watching grass grow. Is this really the GOP’s Great White Hope?
By Eric
October 19, 2007 10:32 PM | Link to this
Ron @ 12:53:
The Democrats seldom acknowledge that we haven’t had a second successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. When they do acknowledge it, most act as though they don’t like it.
Should Hillary Clinton be elected president, she will defend this country by one-time bombings “with no collateral damage” similar to the aspirin factory bombing carried out by her husband.
In addition, should terrorists launch a dirty bomb attack on a major U.S. city, citizens will gladly hand over their civil rights so the government can “protect them.” Only then will you realize what Constitutional rights you’ve lost.
In electing Mrs. Clinton, you’ll lose both security and some of your civil rights. And once they are gone, they won’t return. Clinton is Stalin in a pants suit.
It’s too bad your hatred of President Bush blinds you to this fact.
Your smug comments about people not being comfortable with the GOP sidestep the 11% rating of the Democrat Congress. Expressed differently, 11% < 30%.
By Will Jones
October 19, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this
So the Log Cabin Bushites are planning a dirty bomb, are you? Everybody with a brain, who can read, think, or watch, knows Bush and Cheney did 9/11. Kid yourself, don’t try to kid anyone else. You all will get yours at the Tory Oak. D.V.
By Craig also
October 19, 2007 11:11 PM | Link to this
Eric, are you for real? Of course there hasn’t been another attack on US soil since 9/11. What’s silly is that you think Bush had anything to do with that.
And as to civil liberties - good grief - let’s talk about wiretapping, and US Citizens held without legal counsel and charges, and on and on. If anything, Dems will restore the civil liberties we’ve lost under Bush and the craven Republican congress.
By Ron
October 20, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Just to add to Craig’s point about it being silly to think Bush has had anything to do with there not being any other attacks since 9/11.
First, remember that 9/11 was on Bush’s watch. He ignored the PDB “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Everyone remembers Condi making a fool of herself trying to tell us that they believed it was “historical” when in fact the counter-terrorism czar at the time was warning the Bush team about Bin Laden when they came into office. Of course, nothing was done.
Then, there was the bipartisan 9/11 Commission set up to help prevent future attacks. Remember that Bush wouldn’t testify under oath and only agreed to talk behind closed doors if Cheney was with him? Also remember that the 9/11 Commission released a report with several suggestions and Bush and the GOP Congress refused to implement most if not all of those suggestions.
Those are a few more reasons why it really is silly to think Bush being president has prevented another 9/11. He didn’t prevent the first one and has done nothing but strip the Constitution of some of the most basic civil liberties it gives us in the name of preventing another one. Our ports aren’t any safer. Our nuclear power plants etc. aren’t more protected. But the rich have their big tax cuts, which is all that really matters to the Republicans anyway.
As to Hillary and the Dem Congress, you can scream Stalin and socialism and wimpy all you want. But the tsunami is coming next year, like it or not. The GOP squandered its opportunity and now the pendulum has swung back the other way. Bush has been the catalyst, but the GOP scandals keep coming. There is no doubt another foot tappin’ Larry Craig getting ready to continue the holier-than-thou GOP’s implosion any day now.