Friday, September 07, 2007

Fred!!! Is In the Race

Yah, we knew that.

Here's some commentary from Patriot Post which happens to comport precisely with my thoughts on the matter.

What does the timing of Fred Thompson’s announcement say about him as a candidate? Well, mostly that he is a leader, not a follower. To his credit, Thompson is not a “formula candidate.” He doesn’t comport with the expectations of Beltway politicos, commentators and media types, and his campaign won’t be as slick as some of his opponents in both parties.

It's been alternatively irritating and enjoyable to hear the angst of the other candidates as their stalking-horses and the Punditocracy/MSM attempted to drag Fred into the race earlier. The aphorism that "misery loves company" came to mind a few times...but just as germane is Fred's comment:

Thompson expressed his doubt that voters will say, “That guy would make a very good president, but he didn’t get in soon enough.”

After all, says Thompson, “People treat politicians sort of like dentists—they don’t have anything to do with them till they have to.”


Some other candidates' Stalking Horses (and professional assassins) have howled about Fred's not-perfect-Conservatism. Aside from the irony which was perfectly apparent in the cases of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, the Patriot has another thought, with which I happen to agree:

...For the record, however, I know Fred Thompson—the man. I know his character, his intellect and his sincerity, and I know his views on the supremacy of our Constitution. Fred’s style is evocative of Ronald Reagan’s strengths. Like Reagan, Thompson speaks right over the heads of his opponents and the Leftmedia, directly to the people.

In 1993, Tennessee’s Republican leadership convinced Thompson, a relative unknown, to campaign for the unexpired Senate term of then-Vice President Albert Gore. He could have been just a sacrificial lamb, but on the campaign trail Fred demonstrated his ability to win the hearts and minds of Republican and Democrat voters.

Despite all the support Bill Clinton and Al Gore could muster for Fred’s opponent, popular six-term Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper, Thompson won a landslide victory in 1994...

By the way, people, "conservatism" is not always the question. It's "constitutional-ism" that counts in Congress and in the Presidency. Start there, and work your way forward.

That "and" which is highlighted in red is extremely important. Think again about what Fred has said about the partisanship in DC and its deleterious effects (except on the attack-machine operatives in BOTH parties...)

By the way, you can see the same crap here in Wisconsin.

Folks, "divided" is no way to win a war, and as Fred has also pointed out, the Jihadi extremists are just one chapter of "war." There will be (hell, they exist now) other opponents, not just military ones, who seek the demolition of the USA.

The central issue, to Fred, lies here:

Thompson’s philosophy and record are most clear in regard to constitutional exegesis pertaining to federalism and state’s rights, as specified by the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
That amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This language is specific about the limitations our Constitution places upon the central government and the rights and responsibilities reserved by the several states and the people.

...Thompson notes, “Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, ‘Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?’ But they don’t. The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended... A government powerful enough to give you everything can take away from you, anything. Our government must be limited by the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.”

There ARE Democrats who do NOT like the increase in power and influence of the Feds. There ARE Republicans who, conversely, DO like that increase. And it is a debate which is worth having out. In the original formulation, the States were to be 'laboratories,' and the Feds were only to make certain that State efforts did not violate the Federal Constitution.

Those days are almost gone--look e.g., at the "Great Seat Belt Crisis" where the Feds bribe the States to make arrests for Not Wearing Seatbelts.

That, friends, is pure poppycock.

On that note, it is clear that Thompson will give Republican front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both “big-government Republicans,” a run for their money. The next debate is 17 September, four months ahead of the first state primaries. With Thompson in the lineup, expect a real debate.

No question about it.

Go, Fred, Go!!!


RAG said...

I like Fred personally but he is awfully vague on many important issues and has yet to demonstrate his personal and political commitment to the core Republican principle of civil rights.

That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable at this point with Rudy, McCain or Mitt.

Dad29 said...

Right-o. LIke the 'civil rights' of McCain-Feingold? Or the 'civil rights' of some provisions of the Patriot Act?

As I mentioned on your blog, civil rights is very 1960's. Fred has not proposed to eliminate EEOC (which, by the way, blatantly allows discrimination against older workers,) nor has he mentioned dropping the position of Attorney General.

And as you well know, every STATE has non-discrimination laws which parallel those of the Feds. So I think your concerns are unjustified, but they are noted.

RAG said...

Keeping EEOC and Attorney General is a given. I also want to know what's in his heart and soul.

And, given his inability to answer a simple question the other day, what's in his head, too, when he's not scripted.

As it is, I think he's just as much of a political sleazeball as the rest of the lot--no better or worse.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

The most important thing Dad mentioned, or quoted, is that Fred is ELECTABLE. He can beat anyone the democrats nominate. The other RINOs running for the republican ticket, simply put, cannot.

RAG said...

I agree with the disgruntled car salesman that Fred is a RINO.

At this point I have no idea who I like. I'm not impressed much by any of the "Republicans" in the mix and the only Democrat I find even remotely interesting in Bill Richardson.

Of course, if the Democrats run Hillary and Barack, we should counter with Liddy and Colin! That would be one heck of a ride!

Dad29 said...

Two more Lefty "R"'s cannot be found, rag.

No matter who wins, it would be a crushing defeat for Liberty.