Fred Thompson Unplugged II

See Fred Thompson Unplugged for the beginning of this story.

So what about the issues? Is Fred Thompson really as conservative as we are told? Failing that, is he at least better than any of the other candidates?

First, it needs to be remembered that in 2000 most people, including me, thought George W. Bush was at least mildly conservative. We were wrong. I, for one, am determined not to be fooled again. For this reason I am not inclined to give anyone benefit of the doubt this time around. Rudy Giuliani has already taken himself off the list for a variety of reasons.

As regular readers know, my top two issues are Life and War. So we'll start with these then move on to some other subjects.

Abortion: Thompson says he wants the Roe vs. Wade decision reversed and abortion regulation returned to the states. He likes Supreme Court justices such as Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and would appoint others who are like them. As Senator he voted a consistent pro-life position, including in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

This is, I think, the minimum we should demand from a presidential candidate. But I'd also like to go beyond the bare essentials. I want a president who respects life enough to oppose abortion morally as well as legally. Here Thompson's record is a little murkier:

• On a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, he checked "opposed" to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protecting the sanctity of human life."

• He included a handwritten clarification: "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

• In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A." Source

From this it appears that Thompson is anti-Roe but not personally pro-life. As recently as 1996, he wasn't willing to say that life begins at conception. Maybe he's changed is mind since then but I haven't heard about it if so.

Furthermore, the combination of his statements about reversing Roe and that abortion should not be criminalized is troubling. If Fred Thompson were a governor or state legislator, he would apparently want abortion to be legal in his state. He hasn't said this explicitly, as far as I know, but it is the only conclusion I can draw from his record.

My impression is that Thompson is more interested in preserving state's rights than in preventing abortion. This was, of course, the same argument made by 19th-century politicians who wanted to preserve slavery in the South. Fortunately for black Americans, Abraham Lincoln felt otherwise.

Thompson's zeal for Federalism also seems selective. He didn't make any great efforts to, say, eliminate federal highway funds for Tennessee. In the Senate he happily voted for all kinds of intrusions by Washington into matters that properly belong to the states. He seems to bring out the federalist argument when he needs political cover for being on both sides of an issue.

Given all this, Thompson is not exactly what I would call "pro-life." He is certainly preferable to Giuliani in this department, but that's not saying much.

Iraq War and Foreign Policy: Thompson generally supports President Bush on Iraq and terrorist-related issues. In 2003 he was strongly in favor of pre-emptive war against Iraq, and he has not backed down from that position. He now seems eager to move on to Iran.

Just this week Thompson gave a speech in London that nicely outlined his foreign policy beliefs. Daniel Larison has a masterful deconstruction of the remarks so I will not go into detail. Suffice to say that if you like the global situation Bush has got us into, you can count on Fred Thompson to deliver more of the same.

Campaign Finance reform: Thompson supported the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation that did practically nothing to reduce the role of money in political campaigns. It did, however, make it more difficult for citizens to promote their political views publicly and is regarded by some as a major infringement on first Amendment rights. McCain-Feingold's main accomplishment was to give billionaires like George Soros unprecedented political influence through "527" groups.

Clinton Impeachment: At President Clinton's impeachment trial before the Senate in 1998, Thompson voted to acquit on the perjury charge. He issued a long statement explaining his reasons, which I find unpersuasive. Here is a good summary. Basically, Thompson agreed Clinton lied to the grand jury but did not think it was grounds to remove him from office.

Thompson seems to have a soft spot for perjurers, since he's been lending his name to fund-raising efforts for the Scooter Libby defense. The best I can make of it is that Fred Thompson thinks it is fine for government officials to lie under oath, at least sometimes. It is unclear on what basis he decides which lies can be excused and which should not.

In any case, Thompson's vote in the Clinton impeachment resulted in a 50-50 tie on the perjury charge. Clinton was in no danger of being removed from office, which takes 67 votes. But the even split prevented even the partial victory of a majority finding that the president had committed perjury.

Other issues: There is a lot more I could say but I think you get the idea. The closer you look, the less Fred Thompson resembles the "next Ronald Reagan" image he wants us to accept. I'm listing a few links below with more background.

In the next installment of Fred Thompson Unplugged, we will look at his interesting personal life. Click here.

Fred Thompson On The Issues
Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions
The Thompson Factor
Wikipedia Entry: Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson Watch IV

It appears that The Last Best Hope Of The GOP may be stumbling. First we have this story from MSNBC which says fundraising has slowed way down. It also notes there is chaos in the non-campaign non-organization, with Mrs. Fred Thompson #2 taking a very active role. Are they two for the price of one? We so loved that with the Clintons, remember.

Next, in an apparent bid to rejuvenate things Thompson has brought in former Senator Spencer Abraham as a senior non-campaign non-official. Some very vocal Thompson backers are very disturbed at this, citing two reasons. Spencer Abraham is of Arab-American descent (though he is not a Muslim) and has apparently been supportive of some Islamic groups. Furthermore, as a Senator Abraham was on the wrong side of the immigration argument, wanting to open the borders even more.

Of course, presidential candidates don't always agree with their aides on every single issue, so the problematic Abraham views may not reflect what Thompson thinks. The problem is we can't know this for sure because Thompson has not given detailed answers to questions on immigration policy, or much of anything else. He's a blank slate on which everyone projects what they want to see.

Finally, the controversy about Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of a pro-abortion organization isn't going away. In fact, his lawyer-like attempts to first deny the story, then spin it in his favor when the evidence became clear are hard to square with the straight-shooter, regular-guy image he wishes to project. This story has video of Thompson flip-flopping on TV.

I continue to maintain that if you like George W. Bush, you'll love Fred Thompson. There doesn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between them in any matter of public policy. If anyone has seen stories of Fred actually disagreeing with anything Bush has done, please tell me. I haven't seen it.

Bro. Robin has a nice round-up of all the GOP candidates that is worth reading. Here is what he says about Thompson. (He doesn't link to back-up for all these positions and I haven't verified them. It all sounds about right, thought.)

Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series "Law and Order" is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.

Thompson’s "Pro-Life" position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:

1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.

Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq."(Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.

Why anybody who is a thinking conservative would support Fred Thompson is beyond me. If this is the best we can do, I'm not sure Hillary would be that much worse.

Fred Thompson Unplugged

The conservative mania for Fred Thompson to enter the GOP presidential race is reaching a fever pitch. Given the dismal set of choices we have so far, it's not particularly surprising that people want a better alternative. Thompson seems ready to oblige and is in fact doing a masterful job building support as a non-candidate.

On the other hand, at this point I think people have pinned so many hopes and dreams on Thompson that there will inevitably be a lot of disappointment when he actually enters the race. When we see him standing on a debate stage with all the other guys, he may no longer be the Great Hope that people imagine him to be.

I haven't ruled out supporting Thompson, but before I get on the bandwagon I need to get a grip on some things about him. I made a big mistake in my evaluation of the current president and I don't intend to be fooled again. So forgive me if it sounds like I'm being hard on the guy. Just remember: the Democrats and the media will throw every bit of dirt they can find at Thompson. I think you would rather hear it now, from me, than be surprised later on.

First, let's talk about Fred's experience. What exactly is it in his background that qualifies him to be president? Well, he's been the CIA Director, a general, an admiral, an FBI Agent, White House Chief of Staff, and of course a District Attorney for many years. Of course he was just acting in these roles, but at least he learned how to look the part.

As for actual experience, Fred spent eight years as a United States Senator from Tennessee. He was elected in 1994 to fill the remaining two years of Al Gore's term after Gore became Vice President. Then he was re-elected to a full six-year term in 1996. In 2002 he chose not to run for re-election and returned to his acting career.

Prior to his acting and senatorial careers, Thompson spent most of his time in Washington D.C. as an attorney and lobbyist. Among other groups, he represented the savings & loan industry on Capitol Hill in the 1980s, and was instrumental in passing legislation which later led to the collapse of the S&Ls and an enormous taxpayer bailout. Does that mean the S&L fiasco was his fault? No, not necessarily. But he'll have to explain how he was involved, and my guess is the making of that sausage wasn't very pretty.

Back to qualifications: does eight years in the Senate qualify one to be president? That is the extent of Thompson's government service, other than time as a congressional staffer. He's often compared to Reagan as an actor turned politician, but Reagan was also Governor of California before he ran for president.

If Fred Thompson is the GOP nominee, it will be hard to argue that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards are "inexperienced." Of course they won't be able to say it about Thompson, either. Al Gore, if he gets in the race, would present greater problems for Thompson on this point.

There is something to be said for having an "outsider" as president - but Thompson is anything but a Washington outsider. He's lived and worked there for most of his adult life. Meanwhile Bush, who really is an outsider, hasn't worked out so well.

There is a good reason that most presidents have been either vice presidents, governors or generals. The experience of leading a large organization and making executive decisions requires a whole different temperament than that of a legislator. There are exceptions, of course, but longtime Senators and Representatives rarely get elected, and those who do are usually not very successful as president.

Presidents make life or death decisions that affect millions of people. I think it is fair to ask that they have some background in high-level leadership. If elected, Thompson will be one of the least "experienced" presidents we've ever had. Maybe he has other qualities that will help him overcome this, but it's a big hurdle.

In a forthcoming post we will discuss Fred Thompson on the issues, and then take a look at his personal life. Click here for Part II.

Fred Thompson Watch V

As previously noted herein, non-candidate for president Fred Thompson worked as a lobbyist on behalf of a pro-abortion group in the early 1990s. This remains a problem for his non-campaign.

First, this was clumsily handled from the beginning, with his staff at first issuing a flat denial any such thing every happened. From there the story progressed to "maybe I did" to "If I did it doesn't matter" to "I did and I'm proud of it." Here is the latest version:

"Don't confuse the lawyer with the client," Thompson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It has nothing to do with one's political views. Lawyering is a profession but it's also a business."

Thompson has come under fire for representing - among others - abortion rights activists, raising questions about his own position as he prepares to enter the contest for the Republican presidential nomination.

"I'm not representing an issue," said Thompson. "I'm representing a client who has an issue."

Thompson, a lawyer, compared his work lobbying to that of a lawyer who represents someone accused of a crime.

"I've represented people accused of crimes," Thompson said. "These are people who deserved representation." MORE

Indeed, people who are accused of crimes deserve representation. This is not exactly the same thing as lobbying the government for political favors. Anyway, neither lawyers nor lobbyists are required to represent everyone who asks them for help. If, in fact, Fred Thompson was willing to lobby on behalf of anybody with cash no matter how much he disagreed with their cause, then the main thing this tells us is that he will do anything if the price is right, ethical principles notwithstanding.

Think about it another way: suppose in the early 1990s Fred Thompson had lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of, say, the Palestinian Liberation Organization? Or Osama bin Ladin? Saddam Hussein? Saudi princes? Open-borders advocates? The Ku Klux Klan? Greenpeace? Would conservatives be so quick to grant absolution on the basis that he was "just representing a client?" Certainly not.

Abortion is a non-negotiable issue for me. There are some things to like about Fred Thompson, but, for me, nothing else will matter until I know that he believes life begins at conception and must be given full legal protection from that very moment.

So far, all I've seen are vague statements from Thompson saying he is "pro-life." Like most politicians, he leaves himself plenty of wiggle room so he can try to be all things to all people. I've been fooled before and it isn't going to happen again. He needs to be specific.

This is one of many reasons Ron Paul remains my candidate of choice. Here is a cool test that helps identify which candidates match your opinions on the issues. Try it out.

Fred Thompson is Pro-Choice

I've said all along that Fred Thompson's pro-life credentials were shaky. Now he's admitted it in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press this weekend. The exchange meanders quite a bit - here is the full transcript if you want to read it for yourself. The abortion part begins at the bottom of page 3.

The upshot is that Thompson sees abortion as a "states rights" issue. He says he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned, but he doesn't want the states to outlaw abortion. He opposes the GOP platform, which has called for Human Life Amendment to the Constitution since the Reagan years. Thompson nevertheless maintains that he is "pro-life" because he will do what he can as president to keep the federal government out of it.

It got really weird when Russert pinned down Thompson about when life begins.

MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

Follow this, if you can. Thompson says he is pro-life, but he has to be forced into admitting the obvious fact that an unborn child is actually a living person, but he still would oppose the federal government doing anything to help anyone kill this living person, but he wants the Supreme Court to make it easier for states to outlaw this act, but he personally hopes the states will keep it legal so young girls in "extreme situations" won't get put in jail. Sound confusing? Here's the summary: he is pro-choice.

In fact, this whole "state's rights" argument was settled quite convincingly by the Civil War. Thompson is making the same argument that Southern slaveholders did prior to 1865. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Allowing doctors to kill children for whatever reason the mom thinks is sufficient does not even remotely qualify as "due process of law." If Fred Thompson thinks life begins at conception - as he told Russert - his constitutional duty as president will be to defend it from the time of conception. He just said on national TV that he intend to ignore his oath of office.

Moreover, if Thompson loves federalism so much he'll have to take some radically unpopular positions as president. Since the national government, in his view, has no business stopping abortion, it must also has no business building highways, regulating drugs, helping with disaster relief, imposing safety standards for toys, and a zillion other things. To be consistent with the stand he takes on abortion he'll have to dismantle about half the federal government. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, but Thompson won't do it. Why? Because he doesn't really believe in federalism. He is using the concept as a convenient dodge to have it both ways on abortion. He cites federalism when it helps him, and ignores it when it doesn't. He's a typical politician, in other words.

As a purely political matter, this is probably a smart position for Thompson to take. He's seen Giuliani get ahead in the polls by saying he is personally against abortion but won't do anything to stop it. Both of them know that most voters won't look very deeply into their positions, so the goal is to stay vague and be all things to all people. It may work well enough to put one of them in the White House. We'll know in a year.

Now it is quite true that there is little the president can directly do about abortion, other than appointing judges who will, we hope, return the issue to the states to decide. I think it matters that the president is pro-life because it tells us other things about the way he will govern. As noted above, Thompson admits that a fetus is a living person - but he still wants to let such persons be killed without due process of law. What other categories of people will he refuse to protect? Which other parts of the Constitution is he prepared to ignore?

Since making prudent judgments about these things is a big part of being president, we need someone who holds the right principles. Fred Thompson clearly does not.

More from Lydia at What's Wrong with the World.

Fred Thompson Watch

As desperate so-called conservatives beg Fred Thompson to enter the presidential race, his credentials as Last Best Hope Of The Right continue to crumble. Two new items have just emerged.

First, it seems that Fred lobbied the White House on behalf of a pro-abortion group in 1991. His spokesman issued a flat denial that any such thing ever happened. Yet according to press accounts, there are multiple witnesses who remember Thompson's extensive involvement. His engagement is also shown on the minutes of the pro-abortion group's board meeting.

If Thompson had a long record of outspoken pro-life views, I might give him the benefit of the doubt on this. His Senate voting record was fine on this issue. On the other hand, his past statements do not suggest a deeply held conviction about life issues. Someone who declines to say whether he believes life begins at conception isn't pro-life.

It may be that Thompson previously supported abortion rights and has since changed his mind. Many people have made that journey. If that is the case, he would be well advised to say so publicly instead of maintaining this facade that he has been pro-life always. It is becoming very hard to believe.

The second item has to do with Thompson's involvement in the Watergate investigation. He was a congressional staffer during the inquiry into the Nixon Administration and is credited with revealing the now-infamous White House taping system. It now emerges that Thompson actually tipped off Nixon's lawyer about the evidence he had uncovered.

The source for this is Thompson's own book, so he will have a hard time denying it. Along with his TV role on Law & Order, Thompson's Watergate involvement has a lot to do with his straight-shooter image. It appears the image is more than a little bit distorted.

If all you Fredheads out there want to continue backing this guy, I won't argue too much. He is certainly preferable to Giuliani as the GOP candidate. Just don't fool yourselves into thinking that Fred Thompson is a true-blue conservative. He's actually a lot like the tough-talking good ol' boy with a great pedigree but minimal leadership experience who currently occupies the Oval Office.

For people who are perfectly happy with Bush, Thompson is your guy. If you're not happy with Bush, then supporting Thompson is nuts. All you will get from him is more of the same.

Hat tips: Born at the Crest of the Empire, The Anti-Fred, and Faciamus!


UPDATE 7/8/07: The "desperate so-called conservative" referenced above has taken note of this post. I'm glad you found it useful. Keep reading Driving Out The Snakes and you will learn much more.

Meanwhile here is a good post explaining why these stories aren't simply the result of a news media desperate to take down someone they perceive to be a big threat.

Focus on What?

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family needs to take a vacation and re-think some things. A few weeks ago he helped Newt Gingrich break the news of various sexual dalliances, probably in order to help Gingrich in his all-but-certain presidential run. Now Dobson is questioning the faith of former Senator Fred Thompson - who, not coincidentally, threatens to take the social conservative support Newt is banking on.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith.""We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility." MORE

I hope this wasn't an attempt by Dobson to help Gingrich by downplaying Thompson. Gingrich and Thompson both hold about the same positions on the issues Dobson considers important. Gingrich has a marital history that is sordid, to say the least. If your goal is to teach the world about "family values" you can probably find a better poster boy than Newt Gingrich.

As for saying that Thompson is not a "Christian," someone in Dobson's position should choose his words a little more carefully. However, the word has a different meaning in this context. From Dobson's perspective, a Christian isn't just someone with the same faith. It's a term used to describe people who are open about their faith and who believe in Biblical moral teachings. I think that is what Dobson was trying to say. I doubt he was making any kind of judgment about Thompson's beliefs or salvation.

Nonetheless, it was not a smart thing to say about someone who could be a serious candidate for the White House. It looks more and more like Dobson, along with Jerry Falwell, has decided to hitch his 2008 wagon to Newt Gingrich. Why? I can only speculate, but he probably sees the hoopla surrounding Rudy Giuliani and is scared.

A Giuliani nomination by the GOP would be disastrous for Dobson and the issues he promotes. He's trying to head that off and has chosen Gingrich as the best hope for doing so. What he would have against Fred Thompson, I don't know. From all appearances Thompson is at least as Christian as Ronald Reagan was.

Other reactions:
Poliblog
Professor Bainbridge

Fred Thompson Watch III

We now have confirmation of recent reports that soon-to-be presidential candidate Fred Thompson represented a pro-abortion group as a lobbyist in the early 1990s. Billing records from his law firm show that Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working on behalf of the group, including lengthy consultations with its president and three conversations with Bush Administration officials.

How will this effect Thompson's chances? Hard to say. Abortion appears to have faded as an issue for this cycle. There are people, like me, for whom it is non-negotiable, but most people appear more concerned with the Iraq war, terrorism, and immigration. For Fred this is a good thing because he looks increasingly shaky on life issues. I'll happily eat my words if Thompson will just give us a forthright explanation of all the conflicting statements he's made about abortion, but it hasn't happened yet.

This episode could still hurt Thompson, however, because it undermines the straight-talking next-Reagan image he wishes to project. He went from denial to don't recall to maybe to doesn't matter in less than two weeks. He's looking a lot like somebody who has something to hide.

In fact, he does have something to hide. Fred Thompson is the consummate Washington insider. He's played both sides of the fence with the #1 objective being his own enrichment and advancement. In this he has a lot in common with most politicians, and he may well be the best we can hope for on the GOP side this time. I'm still mystified by the reflexive enthusiasm that some people have for Thompson, though. As far as I can tell he is nothing but a ho-hum, mainstream Republican. If not for his acting experience I'm not sure anyone would give him a second look.

Hat tip: Poliblog

Fred Thompson Watch II

The leading non-candidate for the GOP presidential nomination finally responded to news that he lobbied on behalf of a pro-abortion group in the early 1990s.

Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn’t remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.

The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP’s anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.

Realizing that opponents in both parties are mining his legal career for damaging ammunition, Thompson also is engaging in a bit of preemption. He writes in a column posted Wednesday by the conservative Power Line blog: “[I]f a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.” MORE

This is nonsense. Yes, in our adversary legal system it is important than both sides of a case have competent attorneys who represent them zealously. The lawyers do their best, and usually justice prevails. A lawyer who represents an axe murderer is filling an important role in seeing that everyone receives a fair trial.

That's not what Thompson was doing in this case. There was no trial involved, and his "client" was not in any legal jeopardy. He was using his political connections at the White House to try to get favors for one side of a political fight. The pro-abortion group was at risk of nothing more than not getting their way on a matter of public policy.

I can guarantee you that if Thompson had lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of, for example, a group wanting more rights for illegal immigrants, the same people who think his representation of a pro-abortion group is no big deal would be singing a different tune.

The story linked above also notes that the Thompson non-campaign was planning an announcement sometime before August 5th, but may push that back further in order to get past this controversy. We'll see. I continue to think the wheels will come off the Fred Thompson bandwagon once he enters the race and has to face actual questions about actual policies.

Fred Thompson In Da House

Finally, this absurdly long mating dance is over and Fred Thompson is officially running for president. I'm still dubious he is the Great Right Hope that some people want, but at least we will get to find out now.

For Fredheads, the hard part begins now. He will no longer get away with platitudes and vague generalities. He will be asked hard questions about important policy issues from people who don't necessarily like him. He will have to be specific. Is he up to the job? I think we'll know pretty soon - probably within a month. Thompson is under the microscope, effective now. If he doesn't meet some very high expectations, his support could evaporate quickly.

From what we know so far, Thompson strikes me as a lot like George W. Bush, and I don't mean that as a compliment. The same can be said of all the GOP candidates, actually, with the exception of Ron Paul. He's the only one who has been willing to break with the president in any significant way. Nonetheless, I'm going to reserve judgment for a little while and give Thompson a chance to speak.

Here are my prior posts about Fred Thompson, in which I raise some important questions. I hope we get answers soon.

Finally, take a look at this campaign commercial that aired last night. Does the way he moves his head strike anyone else as kind of weird? I've seen Thompson in many interviews and not noticed him talk this way before. It almost looks like they speeded up the tape to make him appear more dynamic. I hate to nitpick about trivial things but he is an actor, after all. This doesn't seem like a very good performance for his big debut.

Fred Thompson Unplugged III

Part I
Part II

Fred Thompson has an interesting personal life. In 1959 at the age of 17, he married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey. It appears she was already bearing his child, since son Tony was born seven months later according to this chronology. Anyway, he did the honorable thing by marrying the girl. They both worked while Fred went through college and law school and had two more children.

Fred's marriage to Sarah ended in a divorce in 1985. This was, perhaps not coincidentally, right about the time his acting career was beginning to take off. There followed a 17-year period of unmarried life during which Thompson is alleged by some to have taken full advantage of the "favors" that are often available to celebrities and politicians.

In 2002, Fred married his current wife, Jeri Kehn and has two young children with her. Jeri was born in 1967, making her 27 years younger than her husband. As this picture reveals, she is a very attractive woman. Some have called her a "trophy wife" and wondered how voters will react to having her as first lady. That may be unfair, but at the very least it gives Democrats an opening to attack Thompson as a hypocrite on family values. If he is the nominee, you will hear a lot about his personal life.

Former wife Sarah, along with several former girlfriends, have reportedly agreed to campaign for Fred if he is nominated, which will be rather strange. Apparently they remain on good terms, though if he has any chance of becoming president it's not surprising that old friends would want to keep in his good graces.

The requisite family photo ops will be odd as well, since it will be far from clear to the casual observer how to tell the difference between Thompson's young wife and his children - two of whom are actually older than their stepmother. Given the weird family structures of modern Americans, however, it may actually get Fred some sympathy. We've all been touched by divorce, remarriage, and the awkwardness that sometimes goes with it.

Some will say all this is none of our business. Like it or not, nothing is off limits in modern politics. These things are all going to be talked about. Skeletons, if there are any, will be brought out of the closet. Voters will decide in the end what matters.

News reports are now suggesting Fred could announce his candidacy sometime this week. Once he does, the honeymoon he has enjoyed so far will end quickly. He'll have to start answering questions, taking positions, and proving himself. We'll learn a lot more about him soon.

George Will vs. Fred Thompson

I often disagree with George Will, but the man does have a way with words. Consider today's column in which he dissects Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.

The Sean Hannity dig is nice, too. Read the rest.

Fred Thompson Rocks NH?

Fred Thompson got a decidedly cool reception in New Hampshire this weekend.

The former Tennessee senator with the baritone drawl showed up Thursday in New Hampshire, the site of the first primary voting, and gave a speech that lasted only nine minutes, skipping over hot-button issues such as Iraq and immigration to invoke platitudes about freedom and strength.

He left more than a few Republicans disappointed. more

The conservative blogosphere is still enraptured with Thompson, but I continue to think it is mainly due to disappointment with the other candidates. Practically anyone would be preferable to Giuliani or McCain, and Thompson may well prove to be the best we can hope for. So far, however, I see nothing to indicate he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, to whom he is so frequently compared.

There is now at least one Anti-Fred blog, and my guess is that once he starts having to take actual positions on actual issues, rather than mouthing patriotic platitudes, his support will drop precipitously. My big question is his stance on abortion. There is a lot of ambiguity in his record and a few things that are downright disturbing.

Palin on Roe

I must confess I have been unable to force myself to watch the entirety of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. The parts I did see made me wince. So it was only today, via Rod Dreher, that I learned what she had to say about Roe vs Wade.

Keep in mind that, for social conservatives, the prime justification for having Palin on the ticket is that she is demonstrably and personally pro-life. For all McCain's faults, with Palin as VP we have a foot in the door at the White House, and maybe a chance to get one of our own in the big office someday. Right? Now read this:

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

OK. Palin sounds like someone who has the right instincts. She does not sound like someone who has wrestled with the philosophical and legal basis of her beliefs. There are two huge problems with what she said.

First, she says abortion should be up to the states. This line of reasoning was wrong when applied to slavery in the 19th century, and it's wrong now. Government at all levels must defend certain fundamental human rights. These include - as the Declaration of Independence says - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the foundation, and states have no right to take it away from innocent people. She is taking essentially the same position that Fred Thompson did in the GOP primary campaign. Plenty of us roundly criticized Thompson for it at the time. For the most part, Palin is now getting a pass.

Second, Palin thinks the Constitution contains a "right to privacy." Roe vs Wade notwithstanding, most legal scholars find no such thing and regard Roe's logic as laughable, even when they agree with its result. Yet we are told that Palin can be counted on to influence McCain's judicial appointments more in the conservative, originalist direction? I think not, if this interview reflects her judicial philosophy.

Abortion will almost certainly come up in tonight's debate, and I hope we hear something from Palin to clarify these remarks. Otherwise, I suspect a wave of buyer's remorse will sweep over the people who have so lionized her for the last month. The more we learn about Palin, the less she lives up to the reasons McCain supposedly picked her. This momentum needs to change, and it needs to happen fast, or else Obama will win in a rout.

Fred's Short Survey

Texas Fred posted this survey on his blog a few days ago and asked readers to post their responses. Here's my entry, in case anyone is interested.

1. Describe your political persuasion.

I'm hard to classify, as noted here. I would say I'm conservative with libertarian leanings on some issues. For the most part I think we are better off with as little government as possible, but unrestrained capitalism merely brings a different set of problems. Democracy works only insofar as you have an educated population with some semblance of a moral compass, which we don't anymore. The Constitution is still probably the best balance, but as soon as George Washington left office it started disintegrating.

2. A huge number of Conservatives and quite a few Republicans are seriously pushing to get Fred Thompson to declare his run for POTUS, if he doesn’t declare, or should he declare and not win the nomination, who would you want to see in his place from the current crowd??

From the current crowd, Ron Paul and Sam Brownback are closest to my ideal. Chuck Hagel would be very appealing to me, but his recent chumminess with Michael Bloomberg is bothersome. Giuliani, Gingrich, and McCain are all out of the question for me.

3. Describe your feelings in regards to the war in Iraq…

I supported the war initially. Since then I have decided that the entire concept of "preventative" war is unsound and probably immoral. Having done it anyway, once Saddam was ousted and no WMD were found I think we should have left the Iraqis to sort things out for themselves. We should not be nation-building because, as events have proven, we're not very good at it. Democracy cannot be forced on people who don't want it.

4. Do you think Iraq was a part of the terrorist organization that attacked the USA on 9-11??

There were definitely some connections, but I do not think Saddam knew what was planned or knowingly cooperated. UBL hated him as much as he hates Bush.

5. Do you believe the U.S. government was in ANY WAY involved in the attacks of 9-11??

No. Maybe different agencies had information that in hindsight would have shown what was coming, but the pieces were never put together.

6. Do you believe that we can achieve a victory in Iraq?? A true victory?? Is it still possible??

If by victory we mean a stable democracy, no. That's at least a generation away. The best we can hope for at this point is to keep the insurgency manageable and defend Iraq from interference by its neighbors, namely Iran and Syria. Daily life in Iraq will, at best, come to resemble the low-level background conflict that now exists in Israel and Lebanon.

7. If you believe that we can achieve victory in Iraq, what do you think the USA is going to have to do to make it happen…

The Bush Administration, specifically Rumsfeld, made a huge mistake trying to fight this war without rebuilding ground forces (Army & Marines) to at least the size we had at the time of Desert Storm. Gen. Eric Shinseki was right when he said in 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. Problem: we don't have that many troops, and cannot have them short of a WW2-style full national mobilization. Bush probably could have rallied the country to do it had he acted right after 9/11 - but he didn't. Instead we were all told to go about our normal lives. Now Bush wonders why the people aren't behind him. It's because you didn't lead us, sir.

Having said all that, how do we get out of the current mess? I think the best solution is for U.S. forces to forget about peacekeeping. Withdraw to defensive positions along the borders with Iran and Syria and then let the Iraqis build their own nation without outside interference. It won't be pretty but it is probably the best we can hope for now.
8. If you believe that there is a possibility for victory in Iraq, can that victory be won thru diplomatic negotiations?? And if you answer yes, WHO would these negotiations need to include??

Diplomatic negotiations unlikely to accomplish much at this point because governments are not the problem. People who hate each other for economic, cultural, and religious reasons will not follow whatever compromises the diplomats come up with. Until hearts are changed and people become willing to co-exist, negotiations will not help.

9. If you happen to be a Dem, who is your candidate??

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I can't imagine voting for any of the Democrats who are running. I'll stay home or vote for a third-party if the GOP doesn't nominate someone who is pro-life and willing to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

10. And last, but not least, what are your feelings concerning the security of the USA and our borders and coastlines??

We need to get control of our borders, whatever it takes. Allowing every Tomas, Ricardo y Pierre who wants to walk right in is foolish. Employers who hire illegals need to be severely punished. If foreigners want to work here and U.S. employers need the help, I would support admitting them in an orderly process that screens out criminals and terrorists. Those who want to stay here permanently need to learn English, pay taxes, and otherwise assimilate into our culture as quickly as possible.

Is Huckabee the One?

With Fred Thompson proving to be less attractive than some people thought, and Sam Brownback now out of the race, many social conservatives are turning their attention to Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is firmly pro-life and pushes all the right buttons on other cultural issues. As a Baptist minister he is also comfortable talking in religious terms. He wowed the audience at the recent Values Voter Summit and did surprisingly well in the straw vote of attendees.

Not so fast, said John Fund in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The business community in Arkansas is split. Some praise Mr. Huckabee's efforts to raise taxes to repair roads and work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Free-market advocates are skeptical. "He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate." MORE

David Kuo came to Huckabee's defense, suggesting Fund may have had other motives.

Well let's think about this. He loves the spotlight? Check. He was a preacher and is now a politician - he definitely believes in himself.

An economic and environmental liberal? Yeah, he only cut taxes and fees 100 times totaling more than $375 million. He only left a state surplus of nearly $850 million. What a liberal disaster he is.

This is a pure hit piece with a curious number of quotes from Mitt Romney backers. MORE

My view is we could probably do worse than Huckabee, but I can't get excited about him. Maybe I will learn more and change my mind. For now, my vote in the GOP primary still goes to Ron Paul.

The Race is Over

I haven’t posted much on the presidential horse-race because it has, quite frankly, become boring to me. I still intend to vote for Ron Paul in the Texas GOP primary, but I’m under no illusions he will win the nomination. Nor would I really want him to be president. What I want to do is send a message to the party establishment that I’m unhappy with all their so-called “mainstream” candidates.

Having said that, who would I like to see on the ballot in November? Frankly, there are no good choices in either party. At this point the winds are blowing in a Democratic direction, so there is a good chance either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be our next president. I know this is a depressing thought, but I suggest you start getting used to the idea. I think either of them can beat whoever the Republicans nominate. Hillary may be slightly less threatening than Obama, whose rhetorical skills might enable him to actually get large parts of the liberal agenda passed into law.

The Republican race is more wide-open. Excepting Ron Paul, my next choice would have to be Huckabee. I think he is more reliably pro-life, but I fear he will be little different from George W. Bush in most other respects. McCain and Giuliani scare the daylights out of me with their eagerness to bomb and/or torture everyone in sight. (McCain, to his credit, is against torture.) As for Romney, I can’t believe a word the man says. Fred Thompson puts me to sleep, which wouldn’t be all bad in a president but I also don’t believe he is really pro-life.

My guess is the GOP race will come down to McCain vs. Romney. After his distant third-place showing in Michigan, Huckabee is probably past his peak. This is sad in a way because I think Huckabee is probably the only one with a fighting chance to beat Hillary or Obama. The GOP power brokers would apparently rather lose the election than get behind one of those wacky Christians.

Rod Dreher has an interesting scenario: McCain gets the nomination, makes Huckabee his running mate and they then lose in November. This would set up Huckabee to be the GOP presumptive nominee in 2012, by which time the Democrats may have screwed up enough to make a GOP victory more realistic. We'll see.

In any case, for me this election cycle is probably over. There is no chance of a good outcome, from my perspective, so the best I can do is pick the lesser evil. Since the lesser evil is still evil, I can't get excited about it any more.

Giuliani's Friends

It just keeps on getting better for Rudy Giuliani. Mayor Tough-On-Crime's campaign chairman in South Carolina, Thomas Ravenel, was indicted yesterday on cocaine distribution charges. Of course the Giuliani campaign denies all knowledge of Mr. Ravenel's illegal activities.

Now ask yourself this: if another candidate, say Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, had a state chairman charged with drug felonies, would the Giuliani campaign just let it slide? I think not.

Margie Burns makes an interesting point:

But then, a mayor who could use Bernard Kerik as driver, bodyguard and general factotum ostensibly without noticing any of the apparent problems in that area could hardly be counted on to check into the backgrounds or alleged recreational substance abuse of his more remote political allies.

Right. But it's OK. You know we can count on Rudy to protect us from the terrorists.

The Joy of Waterboarding

Think for a moment: on September 10, 2001, would the thought have ever crossed your mind that six years later presidential candidates would be arguing about whether the United States should or should not torture people? No, the mere thought was preposterous. Times have changed.

It now seems clear that the U.S. has, at the very least, used a technique called waterboarding on at least two captured terrorists. Depending who you listen to, the information thus elicited either saved lives or was totally useless.

Be that as it may, there has been much discussion on whether waterboarding does or does not qualify as "torture." The Bush Administration is no help in this regard. They tell us a) the U.S. does not torture while b) simultaneously refusing to define what they consider to be acts of torture.

The first inclination of many Americans is along the lines of "whatever it takes to keep us safe" without giving much thought to the details. A few actually relish the idea of bringing pain to our enemies and want to get even tougher. We have been told by people up to and including Vice President Cheney that waterboarding is no worse than a dip in the backyard pool. They point out that our own military forces use waterboarding as a training tool. Therefore it must not be torture, they say, curiously forgetting that our military trains people to face it precisely because it is torture. Mark Shea explains:

Here's the deal: have you ever had an experience of being dunked when you weren't ready for it as a teenager? Ever wrestle as a kid and have somebody cut off your wind for half a second? Remember the panic when you needed to breathe and couldn't?

Now: You are strapped to a board spread-eagle. You already can't breath too deeply in this position. The board is tipped back into a dunk tank and you are head down in the water. The water runs into your sinuses unless you breathe out through your nose. But breathing out means you can't hold your breathe for long. You feel the urge to breathe but you mustn't. Your whole body begins to flex in panic and terror. Your knotted fists bang ineffectually on the board. But the people doing this are not trainers. They are Professionals. They aren't waiting for you to say, "Okay guys, I get the idea of what it's like, You can take me out now!"

They are waiting for your lungs to feel as though they will burst, for the moment *past* the moment of supreme horror when your autonomic system kicks in and you inhale--and gag on--a lungful of water, when you would scream if there were any air in your lungs, when you start to black out.

Then, they pull you from the water, pound on your chest, and bring you too, coughing and retching and more terrified than you have ever been in your life. You have five seconds to start talking--even if you have nothing to say.

And then it all starts again.

And people in these comfy comboxes and elsewhere in cyberspace and on the Rubbber Hose Right (not to mention in the office of the Vice President) have the *gall* to say "That does not rise to the level of torture."

A second and a half of not being able to reach the surface of the lake when I was a kid is still the stuff of nightmares decades later. Those who pretend waterboarding is not torture are either so out of touch with reality that they should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery or they are moral imbeciles.

The group of those who think waterboarding is just fine includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Tom Tancredo, all of whom want to be Your President and all of whom promise not to torture anyone as long as they get to decide what constitutes "torture." They also promise to do whatever is only to really bad guys. If one of them makes it to the Oval Office look for the definition of "really bad" to expand greatly. It may even include you.

These definitional games are a distraction from the real issue: if the only way we can defeat the enemy is to become the enemy, we have already lost the war. The U.S. somehow managed to win World War II without torturing German or Japanese prisoners. Even today the professional interrogators say torture is useless and even counterproductive in getting information from prisoners. If there really is a "ticking bomb" someplace, there is no reason to think that torturing a prisoner (assuming you have one, and assuming your prisoner has knowledge that will help before it's too late) will prevent the bomb from going off. More likely it will send the authorities off on tangents while the real bomb ticks down to zero.

Yet whether waterboarding or any other technique yields tangible results is morally irrelevant. An intrinsically evil act does not become good merely by virtue of positive consequences. Torture supporters who claim to be Christians also have to deal with some decidedly inconvenient scriptures:

Matthew 5: 43-45 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Luke 6:35-36 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Romans 12: 19-21 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Admittedly, these are hard teachings to accept when you are dealing with evil people who want to harm you and your loved ones. They are, nonetheless, what the Lord demands of us.

Now it is true that Christ did not explicitly tell us "don't torture people." This is probably because it is patently obvious, to everyone except Dick Cheney, that that we cannot reconcile things like waterboarding with the command to love our enemies and overcome evil with good.

As noted above, most people haven't thought through this very deeply and their initial response is that anything goes if it will protect us from "those animals." But we aren't torturing animals. We're doing it to people, human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Calling them animals is simply a way to avoid admitting this inconvenient truth, just as Jews in Nazi Germany were designated as "subhuman" and babies in the womb are, right now, called "fetuses" by those who wish to "terminate" them. It's not killing, you see, if there is no person involved.

Do you really want your country to start down this road? I don't. I also want to be safe from those who would like to attack us. Even more, though, I want to live in a nation that stands for something; a nation that is worth defending; a land of the free and a home of the brave.

Torture does not require bravery. It is, in fact, a cowardly and evil act that brings nothing but pain on both sides. For the prisoner, the pain is immediate. For the torturer and his enablers, it comes later. But it will come.

Rudy & The Christians

I have a couple of theories about Rudy Giuliani’s continued high support among conservative Christians. Pat Robertson’s endorsement is only the latest evidence that Rudy’s softness on abortion and other social issues isn’t a deal killer.

First, most evangelicals and conservative Catholics really don’t think about these things very much. A substantial minority are very devoted and active in pro-life causes, of course. These are the people who stage the sidewalk prayer vigils, staff the crisis pregnancy centers, and write blogs. They make a lot of noise but in the big picture there aren’t that many of them. Most people are far more concerned about things that they think relate to their everyday lives.

Rod Dreher recently quoted a CBS News survey of white evangelicals which found that the four most important elections issues were health care, the Iraq war, immigration and the economy. Abortion is way down the list. With these priorities, it’s not hard to see why people are willing to overlook Rudy’s weak spots.

The second point is something I can’t prove with hard data but it makes intuitive sense. Most people hate to make important decisions by themselves. They would much rather be told what to do and what to think. As the World War II “Greatest Generation” leaves the scene and people who grew up with LBJ’s welfare state take control, there is a common attitude that the government will take care of us. People look to the president as a kind of National Dad who gives us money so we can go out and party.

Because the terrorists threaten our right to party, we need Dad to protect us from them. We feel better when Dad is a tough guy who can beat up anyone who gets in his way. Rudy Giuliani looks, talks and acts like a tough guy. Therefore, people want him to be their Dad.

The same is true, to a lesser degree, for John McCain and Fred Thompson. The non-tough guys like Romney, Huckabee and Paul don’t have this image, and that’s why they aren’t likely to win. The objective fact of whether a candidate promotes the right policies is just not important. Retailers have long known that packaging is what sells. It’s equally true in politics - and Giuliani has great packaging. As long as he makes a few noises about being a religious guy, even most Christians won't look much deeper.

In fact, I could argue that evangelical Christians are even more likely than the general public to fall into this category. Just look at the "megachurches" that draw in thousands of people every Sunday. Many - and perhaps most - are built around a pastor with a strong personality who uses his sermons to tell people what they want to hear. They "vote" for this pastor by choosing to attend his church instead of another. These churches are a tiny microcosm of the American electorate.

We’ve all had the experience of buying a product that looks great on the shelf, only to find after we open it that it doesn’t do the things we thought it would. We find the same thing with politicians after we elect them. Christians who vote for Giuliani because they think he will keep them “safe” may find themselves in more danger than ever. Too bad presidents don't come with a warranty.