Thompson delivers for the GOP

Fred Thompson is getting rave reviews for his performance at the RNC convention last night, and if you happened to miss it, here 'tis. Aside from his distracting throat-clearing, I think it was a notable testimonial.

Perils of political procrastination

I've always struggled with procrastination. So even though I am very interested in politics, and even though I KEEP UP (much to my wife's chagrin) with politics, I still feel like I'm cramming for the GOP primary; scrambling to pick a candidate.

In any event, I'm taking a second look (not in the usual way) at Huckabee. I always bristled (here, for example) at the term "Compassionate Conservatism" particularly inasmuch as it was crafted (and claimed) by a purported Conservative. It implies that "compassion" is anomalous with "conservative." And I may be concluding that it will be hard to support Huckabee for president. I know that sounds squishy or waffly, but I am just keeping it real. This may be an example of the dog who caught the car . . . Huckabee's ascendance was always a long shot, and I wanted to make sure that the GOP candidate wasn't selected for me by the "GOP establishment" or the MSM, so I have long considered supporting him. Unfortunately, I now have some misgivings which are the result of all the disclosures and discoveries that come out over the course of a campaign.

It's Huckabee's premises that concern me. I concede that we as individuals are more interdependent than ever in the history of America, and that our interdependence blurs lines between accountability and how my life affects others. But I don't think that it has to be that way, and it is a wrong direction to go in arguing that "healthcare costs" will be less if I let the government/state encourage/underwrite others' efforts to lose weight, for example.

Take this recent Time op/ed:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

On environmental issues, too, he has broken from the pack. Only John McCain and he have urged the Federal Government to combat global warming. "I'm one of the few Republicans who talk very clearly about the environment, health care, infrastructure, energy independence. I don't cede any of those to the Democrats," he says.

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of magnanimity and Huckabee's appeal to moderates (largely due to his "presentation"), I think Huckabee--like Dubya, may be too inclined to compromise.

Believe it or not, Huckabee's alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me. His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue. The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.

From a John Fund article about Huckabee.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

To be clear, I have never "endorsed" Mike Huckabee, though I admittedly have been eager for him to get a fair listen and for his articulation of social conservative principles to be heard. I started blogs for him and Sam Brownback at the same time (and reserved blog names for a handful of other potential acceptable-to-socially-conservatives candidates at the same time). I have attempted to give fair consideration and critiques to all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul and some other Grandstandidates ©) It may seem odd to say that but I have long worried that accelerated primary schedules coupled with the dominance of "the Media" in shaping perceptions (and a desire so to shape, frankly) can result in voters making hasty and perhaps ill-advised decisions about whom to support for President. I am just thankful that I'm not going to have to vote tonight on who I want to represent the GOP in '08.

I'm leaning Thompson (you can do a search of a particular candidate's name to get a feel of my feelings about him/her).

I like his demeanor/temperament, his communication skills, his charisma and his rather consistent conservative record. I think that the MSM (and any Republican already committed to another candidate) have a stake in hyping the perception that Thompson is lazy or disinterested or arrogant. This Newsweek article from September provides both sides of this argument, I think.

But as soon as I'm close to picking Thompson, I get an email notification of some lame google hit piece (here) from the Thompson campaign. Face it, people . . . there is plenty of legitimate stuff with which to hammer Huckabee . . . and that stuff resonates with me. The other stuff just irritates me and reflects poorly on your boy. And news like today's report that Thompson would back McCain if he dropped out concerns me . . . I'm not a McCain fan.

As I wrote to David Oatney earlier today, I--like most people, have a number of variables that I'm considering before making my choice, and despite what supporters of various candidates say, there's not a no-brainer choice.

Circumstantial case for Fred

This is a nice ad for Thompson--given the need for a candidate to accumulate support in this fractured primary. By referencing the varied, positive aspects of him as a candidate, the ad touches on what is probably Thompson's best "aspect": that he is the "best hope" for a win in November . . . a candidate who can unify the GOP and attract Independents.



Too bad they can't throw in Rush's comments about Thompson following the last debate.

Roger Simon: biased as charged

It's interesting to get a couple of different angles on a news story, because it provides all-important context for interpreting "facts."

Over at Volunteer Voters I found a link to a Fred Thompson interview (transcript) published in a small bi-weekly paper in Waverly Iowa. I'll concede that Thompson seems somewhat flippant in the interview, and perhaps that is what motivated the interviewer (according to another report--below) to flatly say, "I don't know why he's running and neither does he." I'm not sure what qualifies as a "rationale" for a candidacy, but Thompson seems to supply one to the interviewer . . . read for yourself. Which leads to my charge of bias . . .

Yesterday I read a report of Fred Thompson's retail campaigning in Iowa on the politico blog. ("Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged" - Roger Simon - Politico.com). From reading the story, it could be argued that Thompson doesn't have "energy," but "argu[ing]" isn't what journalists do in news reports, right? In any event, an aversion to gladhanding or schmoozing is not the same thing as being "lazy," and Simon tips his hand (I believe) in this attempted dig on Thompson, who jokingly said, "I'm about the violate my 'silly hat rule,'" when handed a fire helmet while visiting a fire station. Thompson ultimately opted out of trying on the thing, and this is what Roger Simon had to say about the incident:

"In point of fact, the “silly” hat was the one Chief McKenzie wore to fires and I am guessing none of the firefighters in attendance considered it particularly silly, but Thompson was not going to put it on. He just stood there holding it and staring at it."

Actually, Thompson's wife took the hat from him in short order and put it on, but, yes, a fire helmet is a "silly hat" if donned by a grown man, who happens not to be a fire fighter, who is wearing a dress suit, who is running for President.


Tip o' the hat to Political Animals

Thompson stands tall

Update: Here's a nice video montage of debate highlights (from the perspective of Thompson supporters)



I am watching C-Span's replay of the GOP debate from today and just heard a Tom Beaumont (political reporter of the Des Moines Register) pooh-poohing reactions from Frank Luntz's focus group about Fred Thompson's refusal to "raise his hand" in answer to a question about global warming. In sum, it appears that almost every focus group member was impressed with Thompson's "stand."

And the MSM just doesn't get it.

I opined previously that this "raise your hand" shtick is offensive. It was probably the most significant "event" of this event. Thompson appeared like a giant in the half a minute it took for him to say "no" as almost every other person on the stage raised their hand or attempted to squeeze in an answer or entreated the moderator for 30 seconds or anything_other_than_say_refuse_to_play.

Thompson's "pro-lifeyness"

Tennessee radio personality Steve Gill has an op/ed today ("What really is more pro-life?" on Nashville City Paper) taking . . . well, BigPro-Life (if there is such a thing) to task for not selling their soul to the Fred Thompson campaign. Pardon us (I'm not BigPro-Life, but I am pro-life and withholding full-fledged support from Thompson, so maybe I qualify . . .) for deigning to criticize your candidate. I don't speak for any Religious or "Social" Conservative but myself, and I don't agree with the views expressed by other leaders of this slice of the electorate, but I--speaking for myself, have to challenge several of Gill's assertions.

NRLC-PAC's endorsement of a primary candidate for President came as a surprise to many pro-lifers and I voiced some (not much) surprise . . . so sue me. Thompson's vaunted "100% pro-life voting record in the Senate" is great, but anyone who follows the issue of abortion knows that the minimalist/baby-step/incremental legislative strategy pursued by the national pro-life movement in the 90's presented some pretty safe (tame?) voting opportunities for Republicans. Don't get me wrong; I'm appreciative for Thompson's votes on abortion while he was in the Senate, but don't hold it against me that I have some political context for thinking about the matter. A candidate's outspokenness on the issue, and willingness to lead on the issue, and public/campaign statements on the issue are significant. I'm trying to decide which presidential candidate best reflects my views on issues--and that consideration involves more than looking at final votes on a variety of fairly non-controversial (for a Republican) legislation.

Which leads me to my next beef with Gill et al. Gill provides a short (though it sure seemed long) lecture primer on principles of Federalism in defense of Thompson's views on how to handle the issue of abortion.

Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. . . .

Thompson’s preferred policy process lies at the foundation of the Constitution. In the 9th Amendment it is clearly stated that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

. . . .

This Federalist approach to handling issues actually has very little to do with any particular policy itself, since it was intended to be broadly applied rather than on a selective basis to promote a specific political agenda. There can be little doubt that this is the approach the Founding Fathers intended; and respecting that approach does not mean Thompson is "soft" on the issue of abortion. He simply believes that the Constitution means what it says.

Well, as someone who--I guess, "[doesn't] believe the Constitution means what it says," I don't view abortion on demand (aka the opposite of "the right to life") as a mere "particular policy" or a mere element of a "political agenda." You're free to disagree with me, but abortion on demand isn't something that I--as a citizen in a republican form of government, am willing to condone. So, while there is an argument that a Federalist strategy, if successful, would result in a short-term decrease in the number of abortions in America, there is also an argument--my argument, that an across the board protection for innocent human life is warranted. Please don't hate me for using the primary season to sift through all the campaign rhetoric to discern which candidate I think is closest to sharing that opinion.

Concluding his comments about the advantages of a successful, state-by-state Federalist approach, Gill writes:

"And abortion on demand would continue to occur in those states while the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions would continue." (emphasis added)

See, that's the problem, Steve. You (and Thompson and many of Thompson's current supporters) are assuming that Pro-lifers believe he would advance (or at least not stymie) "the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions." Based on Thompson's spotty record of past public statements on the issue (e.g., before he was running for the GOP nomination); based on his conveniently-pragmatic/"realistic" Federalist position on the issue; based on his current, suspect language when discussing the issue; I'm leery of casting all my support to him, at this stage in the process, and at least with regard to the issue of abortion.

I like Thompson and could heartily support him against almost any Democrat I've seen. I know that some in the Thompson camp are growing concerned about his performance in various polls, and that they're getting a little frustrated with "the unpersuaded." That's no shock; but if you want my vote, stop deriding me. Fair enough?

This matters

According to Politico.com: Nat'l Right to Life to endorse Thompson

Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision. . . . in the hotly contested effort to court the fragmented social conservative base, the validation by this group represents a coup for Thompson."

Thompson, talk radio and talking trash

Maybe they're right about talk radio.

This morning I wasted 25 cell phone minutes waiting to speak truth to power on the state-wide talk radio program "Talk of Tennessee" hosted by Steve Gill. As I waited, Gill kept ratcheting up the rhetoric . . . and then the show ended before he took my call. Here's some of what I was going to say:

Gill (who, incidentally, wrote a flattering book about Fred Thompson's likely presidential run: The Fred Factor) was defending Thompson from critics like Mike Huckabee who have been questioning Thompson's convictions on a host of so-called social issues (actually, I had yet to hear of the criticism until Gill spoke about it on the radio--apparently Huckabee is getting some traction in the campaign). Thompson is staking out a position that Federal action on a host of issues is unwise and even--depending on the particular issue, unconstitutional. Well, that's where he's wrong. Or at least Steve Gill is wrong when he asserts that Huckabee doesn't care about the Constitution because he thinks it ought to be amended to protect human life in the womb (Gill also repeatedly questioned the motives and the sincerity of "supposedly pro-life" activists; very insulting, but I don't have time to address that now).

First, the Constitution provides for an amendment process. If a person thinks a right--such as the right to live, ought to be spelled out in the Constitution, then that person can attempt to amend the Constitution to include that right. There are certain principles or rights the protection of which is legitimately not left to the discretion of the States . . . "life" is reasonably considered one of those rights. That's fine if Thompson doesn't think it is, but it is not fine to assert that it is anti-Federalist to acknowledge the existence of such rights or unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution to recognize such rights.

Second, Thompson's reaction (and that of some present supporters) is doing little to assuage the concern of voters who think that abortion is "not a government issue" (as Thompson asserted in his first run for the U.S. Senate) or something that is okay in some states and not okay in other states. Thompson has been straddling the issue of abortion since entering public life. I really resent someone tearing me a new one for wanting more than a pat answer regarding Thompson's views on an issue that is very important to me.

Which leads me to this WaPo article on the subject. In GOP Race, Blurring the Lines in the Abortion Debate | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

"The simple way to look at the abortion divide in the Republican race is Rudy against the rest: one abortion rights supporter against a field of abortion opponents. But take a closer look and the distinctions begin to blur -- not in whether other leading candidates support a woman's right to choose or believe abortion should be outlawed in most or all circumstances, but in what each might do about it as president.

On that question, Thompson and Giuliani and the others are not so far apart. This became clearer on Sunday when Thompson appeared on NBC's 'Meet The Press' as part of the candidates' right (sic) of passage with host Tim Russert. Russert grilled Thompson at some length on abortion and in the course of the discussion, Thompson said two things of note:

First, he said that, as a senator, he had a '100 percent pro-life' voting record. Second, he said that he does not support the Republican Party's platform plank on abortion, which calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution."

First, though I'm glad that Thompson voted the "right" on abortion when he was in the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative scorecard on abortion (or any scorecard, for that matter) is only useful for predicting how someone would vote (assuming, of course, that the person didn't "evolve" on the issue as is common these days) on issues that came up for a vote before him/her while they were in office. The issues--or aspects of a given issue, can be rather narrow depending on the particular period during which the person served, frankly.

Second, as I detailed above, I hope Thompson (and his supporters) can appreciate that a Pro-life voter views abortion as different than laws on marijuana use or insurance regulation or speed limits. It is reasonable--as Gill argued this morning, to assert that Thompson's idea of a Federalist approach would spare more human life than holding out for a nationwide ban on abortion, but please forgive us for being reticent in acceding to a legal position that we vehemently disagree with.

I may very well end up supporting Thompson out of all those in the current GOP field, but I won't be persuaded by disingenuous and/or pugnacious treatment by him or his supporters.

A surrogate sister souljah?

Tennessee attorney and Conservative media personality Steve Gill has written an op/ed (Nashville City Paper--"Dobson's Choice") criticizing James Dobson for recent (and past) critical comments about GOP candidate Fred Thompson. In particular, Gill takes offense at a past statement by Dobson that Thompson didn't appear to be a Christian and Dobson's recent criticism of Thompson's opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment (oh, and Gill also derides Dobson for responding to critics through a spokesperson . . . Gill couldn't be reached for comment--just kidding). At the risk of appearing to be a Dobson apologist (though Gill doesn't appear too concerned about appearing to be a Thompson apologist), I want to comment on Gill's op/ed. You know, to make sure that there aren't illegitimate points of contention between Thompson, Thompson supporters, Dobson and Dobson's "supporters."

Even assuming the best intent of the statement about "being a Christian," I was surprised that Dobson, who is typically media savvy, would make a statement that is so easily misinterpreted. The statement is somewhat understandable to an Evangelical Christian, because our conviction is that "being a Christian" is both more than a cultural category and--this will shock some of you, it is more than the way a person acts. While Scripture says a tree is known by its fruits and "faith without works is dead," whether a person is a Christian or not--according to an Evangelical, has something to do with what said person is willing to profess (e.g., Jesus' words in Matthew 10:32-33 are that "if you confess me before men, I will confess you before My Father"--what constitutes "confess" and what doesn't is probably better left to another post). So an Evangelical Christian is alert to whether a person is willing to confess Christ before men. It doesn't mean that you have to preface every post-game interview or campaign appearance with, "First of all I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," but it is something that should probably be more prominent than a footnote to your life. (I need to clearly state that I don't purport to speak for all Evangelicals; please feel free to modify or challenge any of these characterizations. That being said, I think I have a pretty good perspective on the species.) So that's one angle on the statement.

Another mitigating factor (treating the statement's utterance as a crime) is that Dobson (or his spokesperson) has said that he was using "Christian" interchangeably with "Evangelical Christian." If the statement was in answer to a question like, "Do you think that Thompson is a Christian?" then the questioner is setting it up as something less than a "disparaging" remark. Such a remark could be somewhat disparaging in the Evangelical Christian context, but it is more of an observation than a judgment, again, because we Evangelicals assume that a Christian is someone who is more than casual about their spiritual status and more than casual about their association with Jesus. To be clear, "being a Christian" is not synonymous with being a "good" or even "moral" person (by societal standards). All that being said, while I am heartened when I can pull a lever for a qualified candidate who shares my worldview and faith, that is not a prerequisite to me caring about an election, working in an election or supporting a given candidate.

Now on to Gill's more substantive (in my opinion) criticisms. Gill makes much of the Constitutional position on the issue of same-sex "marriage." Gill writes:

Recently, Dobson launched another drive-by attack on Thompson – before once again ducking behind his spokesmen for cover. This time Dobson, who has still never met or talked with Thompson, declared in a mass email: “Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson then, not surprisingly, declared that Thompson is not the man for him.

What inspired Dobson’s vitriol? Apparently, it is Thompson’s belief that citizens in the individual states should make important public policy decisions -- like defining marriage, restricting abortion and setting education standards. Dobson disagrees, and prefers that the Federal government be the repository of absolute power and decision-making in the country. It is a debate that has raged since the inception of our nation, but Thompson’s view is the one adopted in the Constitution.

I haven't seen the communique in question, but one major flaw in Gill's analysis is that Dobson is talking about support or non-support of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to protect the institution of marriage. As a result, if an amendment were passed, then treating marriage as a federal issue would be wholly Constitutional.

That aspect aside, I think that Gill is either ignorant of or disingenuous about the Religious Conservative position on same-sex "marriage." Gill implies that Dobson is less Federalist than Thompson on the marriage issue as well as abortion or education (for some reason, Gill doesn't reference "campaign finance"). I'm pretty sure this conclusion is not true regarding abortion or education policy, but even on the issue of marriage, I think that a careful analysis of the issue demonstrates that there is no obvious Federalist answer. The existence of differing definitions of marriage from state to state in our republic would be a serious problem given marriage's institutional importance in America and given the Constitutional principle of comity. The absence of a single definition of marriage would intractably disturb almost every sphere of the law (e.g., inheritance, adoption, perhaps Criminal is excluded). Of course, advocates of same-sex "marriage" likely say, "bring on the disturbance," but some traditions, values, principles are worth saving.

I generally agree with Steve Gill, and I generally agree with Fred Thompson. I haven't picked a GOP primary candidate yet (though most acquaintances know "I like Mike"), but depending on how the GOP primary plays out, I and many others may end up backing Fred Thompson--indeed many Religious Conservatives already are. Accordingly, while healthy debate on issues and policies is constructive, there is little benefit (to me and my Party) in picking a fight or failing to reconcile when disagreements or misunderstandings arise. Not every Republican will agree on every issue or on who should be the GOP standard-bearer, so some degree of conflict is inevitable in this process. But this dust-up between Thompson and Dobson is not a reason to cast aspersions or burn bridges or gather the ingredients for a crow casserole, is it?

I know that James Dobson is routinely demonized by the Left and some of that spills over into the MSM, but I don't advise Thompson (or Thompson's supporters) to unnecessarily (note: Clinton's gesture was legitimate) seize or "stage" a Sister Souljah moment during the GOP primary.

Thompson on education

Via The Corner I read that Fred Thompson has recently criticized "No Child Left Behind" (he voted for its passage). Thompson Criticizes No Child Left Behind - washingtonpost.com. From the article:

"We've been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations," Thompson said. "It's not working."

He added that there are problems with Bush's No Child Left Behind program, which requires annual testing and punishes schools that don't make progress.

"No Child Left Behind _ good concept, I'm all for testing _ but it seems like now some of these states are teaching to the test and kind of making it so that everybody does well on the test _ you can't really tell that everybody's doing that well. And it's not objective," Thompson said.

Instead, he said the federal government should be providing block grants as long as states set up objective testing programs.

He said his message to states would be, "We expect you to get objective testing done and publicize those tests for the local parents and for the local citizens and suffer the political ramifications locally if things don't work out right."

I agree with most of Thompson's observations/criticisms on the matter, but it seems to me that the OBVIOUS answer is to not have education dollars routed through a Federal Educational bureaucracy, right?

I'm wondering if Thompson's middle-of-the-road tendencies will be the biggest drag on his primary campaign.

Thompson's alternative view on homosexual marriage

This is actually the first time that I'd heard this proposal, and I'll hand it to Thompson--it won't please any of the activists on the issue. That might be the secret to Thompson's appeal: blunting controversial issues with unorthodox proposals and a trustworthy demeanor. Thompson: Let states decide on gay marriages - USATODAY.com:

Thompson was asked during a campaign stop in Sioux City if he supported a federal ban on gay marriage, which most but not all of the candidates seeking the 2008 GOP nomination support.

He responded by suggesting the U.S. Constitution be amended to bar court decisions in one state on gay marriage from being recognized in another. The provision is part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Thompson voted for in the Senate.

. . .

"In the Register's May poll, 73% of likely GOP caucus-goers said it was 'extremely important' that, when choosing a candidate, that their preferred candidate feel the same way they do about gay marriage. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain oppose a federal gay marriage ban. Most of the other candidates, including those campaigning aggressively in Iowa such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, favor the amendment."

As I mull over the proposal, I am definitely open to a states' rights argument, but the reality is that a law on marriage has ramifications far beyond something like the speed limit or right-to-carry laws. I'll have to disagree with him on this.

Out.Of.The.Park

I just saw Fred Thompson's appearance on The Tonight Show and he knocked it out of the proverbial park . . . articulating the Conservative message in a "hostile" environment . . . showing he's comfortable in his skin . . . cracking a joke or two.

My wife was really impressed (though she thought he didn't look "well"--I told her it was his new exercise regimen and a "before"/baggy suit).

Dem opp research in full swing v. non-candidate

The L.A.Times ("Thompson star dims on abortion issue") is getting up to speed on its opposition research, especially in light of the fact that Fred Thompson is technically still only considering a run for president. Either they're doing some extraordinary digging, or they're lapdogging the abortion-is-AOK lobby. Witnesses and corroborating witnesses et al are being sourced for the story that Fred Thompson lobbied on behalf of the chipper-sounding "National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn."

But I like this choice paragraph from the article: "In 1991, according to several people then affiliated with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., [Thompson] accepted an assignment from the association to lobby the White House to withdraw or relax a 'gag rule' that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money."I like the convoluted way they describe the legislation; I guess it was a little difficult to craft a sentence that used the term "gag rule."

Of course, this news (even with the denials) will serve to unsettle Conservatives, but many are opting for ultra-pragmatism going into '08 . . . emphasis on "ultra" and "going into" . . . there's plenty of time between now and the primaries. Even John Kerry had to mortgage his wife's house to stay afloat after losing in Iowa. But too many Republicans are obsessing on guessing what voters think (or will think) come some future date against an unknown candidate that they're choosing the the "lesser of" before a choice is necessary. Come on folks.

Thompson touches down in Nashville

I just watched this youtube of Fred Thompson's arrival in Nashville for some exploratory type things, and I can't help but think how difficult it is to volley inane questions or comments from odd campaign groupies without looking silly or condescending. Some of the awkward stuff can be restrained by good advance work. Thompson does a pretty good job of not looking silly, and I know he doesn't technically have a campaign yet, but it's hard to conceive how a string of un-advanced (or poorly advanced--IMHO) events like this would stoke the proverbial fire in Thompson's belly . . .


Hat tip: VolunteerVoters.org

Thompson "pro-life"? Yeah, but . . .

Here's an interesting post from Mark Rose (Right Minded: Fred Thompson's pro-life record, and why it doesn't matter as much as we think it does"), and I think that he is right in saying that Conservatives need to "start looking for a candidate in the present who can lead a conservative movement on the national level."

That being said, I do think it is fair for Social Conservatives to want details about Thompson's stance on abortion. And a candidate's candor/forthrightness about past and current policy positions is very telling. In fact, it goes to a candidate's credibility on whether s/he will (or is able to) follow through on promises.

How the e-Horse Race is shaping up

This internet consultant is tracking data about the e-Campaigns of Republican and Democrat presidential candidates. ("MediaPost Publications - The Political Horse Race Is On - 05/30/2007"). I think it is hard to draw many conclusions from the data, but it is interesting to consider the implications of the campaign tactics of respective campaigns. For example, how much does Hillary's extraordinary e-Campaign activity demonstrate that she is popular vs. unpopular? How significant is it that Rudy Giuliani isn't resorting to an e-Campaign in a GOP primary? How relevant is it that Ron Paul is incredibly, though passively, popular in the on-line world?

The author doesn't consider Fred Thompson's on-line (non)campaign, but I perceive he is exceptionally active in this arena.

How important do you think it is for a Republican candidate to capitalize on an internet campaign's potential?

Update: Bill Hobbs has a nice post (here) about politics and the "New Media."

Thompson's record in the Senate (as viewed by the MSM)

This is an interesting article about the relative Conservative-ness of Fred Thompson's record while serving in the U.S. Senate. (CQPolitics.com - "How Fred Thompson’s Senate Record Stacks Up"). While, as a Conservative, I am generally impressed with his stances while a Senator, I have to admit that I like it that he was sometimes willing to buck the GOP party leaders.

That being said, Thompson's position in support of the Anti-1st Amendment Act (popularly referred to simply as McCain-Feingold) was either naive or plan old offensive. And it's interesting to see in this quote from the article how Greg Giroux simplistically states that the act merely "banned 'soft money' donations to the national parties:

"Thompson did occasionally depart from the majority GOP position. In March 2002, Thompson was one of 11 Republicans who voted for an overhaul of campaign finance laws — promoted by McCain and Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold — that banned “soft money” donations to the national political parties.

Brownback and Hagel voted against the campaign finance overhaul, which the ACU opposed on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally limit free-speech rights.

Thompson said at the time that the measure, while far from perfect, had “much more good in this than ill, and I think it will help this institution and ultimately this country.”"

That particular provision of McCain-Feingold was hardly the controversial aspect of the Act.

Thompson war-room preview

I hadn't heard that Michael Moore had challenged Fred Thompson to a "debate" on the issue of "healthcare" (healthcare plus a host of Mooronic allegations--e.g., "are you or have you ever been a friend of Bill Frist who made a lot of money in BigHealth!!!!").

Of course, Moore is just interested in promoting his latest crockumentary, but I enjoyed Thompson's pointed response to Moore's "challenge." Watch it here: Breitbart.tv » Exclusive: Thompson Responds to Michael Moore Challenge.

Hobbs on Thompson and Social Conservatives

Bill Hobbs has posted (here) about an Washington Times article ("Christian conservatives pledge support for '08 Thompson bid") and--based on the anonymous assurances of several "Christian Conservatives," he concludes:

"This is bad news for a number of social-conservative Republicans in the GOP field, especially Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee."

I'm curious as to why they're being secretive, and I think that this story doesn't warrant Bill's conclusion. I noted as I read the article that it inaccurately stated, "Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left." I know that Bill harbors no doubt that Thompson's pro-choice statements/stances from way back in the 90s are insignificant, but not all of us are as convinced (e.g., here and here).

Thompson's consistency--on all but abortion

This report (Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions - New York Sun Politics Blog) via the Drudgester demonstrates that Fred Thompson has been fairly consistent on issues since his run for Senate in 1994, that is, except for his views on abortion. Referencing Thompson's Project Vote Smart questionnaire from his 1994 run, Ryan Sager at the NY Sun reports:

"* Under abortion: He checked the box for: 'Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.' He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states."

For the record, I know that this issue is much more nuanced today than it was in 1994. However, I think that is true because political professionals have learned to navigate the issue on behalf of less-than-ideologically-solidified candidates. I also believe that it does not help a candidate to pretend to have always been unwavering on an issue unless it's true.