Most of those issue ads were run by 527 groups. Groups that Congress now considers a loophole to the Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act Of 2003*. They want to put a stop to it, they’re just realizing they didn’t tighten the controls down enough last time.

*Yes, I know the WaPo story you link talks about the relative lack of Congressional seats lost in ’02 and ’04, and 22 seats changed hands in ’06. But any cursory analysis shows that ’06 was a year where, regardless of finance rules, Republicans were going to take it on the chin.

THIS is NOT against the First Amendment. Had you read the article as any genuine person would you wouldn’t be going on about nonexistant encroachments, Quincy without-a-clue.

You gentlemen can not interpret what you read or you refuse to learn beyond your fixed viewpoint. Either way you’re not worth the time it takes to tell you off!

You’re so occupied with trying to save face you can’t see the forest through the trees. I had entertained the thought of offering you read the article again but, I can see the only point you’ll observe is the one on top of your head.

“Look at his stable record and beliefs…The man has stood completely alone on several votes when both parties collaborated on legislation that overreached.
Which elected official can you name in recent history that has the stones to do that…who do you know has the character to do that?”

Pretty easy answer.

RON PAUL

And Dr. Paul actually believes in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and that all sections of the government should have to abide by them.

Hey, I like Fred. I’m just pointing out that the Social Cons are supporting one of OUR GUYS, a Pro-Choice/Libertarian Republican. So they need a little truth in advertising.

Fred’s a “LIBERTARIAN” Republican, NOT a Social Con.

Since you believe that pro-choice Republicans are automatically libertarians; please find the libertarian leanings in Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Christie Todd Whitman, Jodi Rell, and Mike Bloomberg for me please.

Good point.

First of all, I would disagree with the idea that there is some default libertarian position on abortion. But that’s beside the point.

How can you call someone how not only supported by guided through the Senate one of the greatest restrictions on First Amendment rights in decades a libertarian ?

I uncovered a dusty ole’ copy of REPUBLICAN LIBERTY (RLC Newsletter), from July 1994, in which Thompson clearly states he’s Pro-Choice. (You can see the precise quote at my Blog at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com)

Well, anyway, I uploaded this to RedState.com over the weekend and caused a huge firestorm. My phone is ringing off the hook with calls from interested media reps.

There’s a total of 62 comments so far, on my Blog Entry “Fred Thompson: Pro-Choice Republican” at RedState.com

I’m getting nasty email from Social Cons, and some rather supportive email, as well.

Hey, I like Fred. I’m just pointing out that the Social Cons are supporting one of OUR GUYS, a Pro-Choice/Libertarian Republican. So they need a little truth in advertising.

Fred’s a “LIBERTARIAN” Republican, NOT a Social Con.

It doesn’t matter whether McCain-Feingold worked or not. Its stated goals are disturbing and expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This language is clear and inviolable. Anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution yet supports laws that blatantly violate it deserves to be called on it.

With regards to your comments on power, the framers knew they could never reduce power once it was stolen by the government, that’s why they limited it so clearly. Ignore the limits, as the government has done with McCain-Feingold, and you can have all the power you can handle.

If you truly believe we can not stop politicians from being bought, what on earth makes you believe we can reduce their power ofwhich they guard jealously??

Look at his stable record and beliefs…The man has stood completely alone on several votes when both parties collaborated on legislation that overreached.
Which elected official can you name in recent history that has the stones to do that…who do you know has the character to do that?

C’mon guys, check it out for yourself.