Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 09/12/2007 4:37:16 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Fred Thompson says that he will base his campaign on the "first principles" of "individual freedom and limited government." If he follows through, he will have an opportunity to position himself as the only small-government conservative in the race...
Republicans have been increasingly split between traditional small-government conservatives in the Reagan and Goldwater molds and... big-government conservatives who believe in using an activist government to achieve conservative ends -- even if it means increasing the size, cost, and power of government in the process.
The difference in the two camps is as clear as the difference between Ronald Reagan, who said "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," and George W. Bush, who said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
Bush's brand of big-government conservatism brought us No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a 23 percent increase in domestic discretionary spending. It may well have cost Republicans control of Congress. After all, on election night 2006, 55 percent of voters said that they thought the Republican Party was the party of big government. Now, the Republican primary campaign raises the question of whether the party will continue down the Bush path or return to its Reagan-Goldwater roots.
Most of the current candidates fall squarely into the big-government camp...
Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, a look at his record shows that he has generally supported limited government.
During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Reps. Ron Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo)...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Wouldn’t mind having someone who really does believe in smaller government. Republicans often pay lip service to small government concepts, but they never really follow through. And the Democrats — well, for them bigger is better.
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Sorry, can’t get excited about a “generally” smaller government record. We need REAL government reform, not more lip service. Every New Deal and Great Society program should be exposed as the ponzi schemes they are and ended - that will take real leadership. Is Thompson up to it? I’m not sold on him yet.
Do you honestly believe you’re going to get REAL government reform from Fred’s major opposition- Rudy McRomney? All the rest are also rans. Eventually, you’re going to have to choose, and that choice will boil down to Fred or Rudy.
As a pro small govt contender, will he turn the gay marriage
issue over to the states?
that choice will boil down to Fred or Rudy.
No way. Rudy’s not Fred’s type. Think “governor.”
Sarah Palin, perhaps.
Fred is more of a “not much bigger” government conservative, rather than a “small-government” conservative.
His time in the Senate shows a good position on increasing taxes, but not a lot of indication of sharp spending reductions or elimination of government programs.
Of course, even Ronald Reagan had trouble cutting actual spending. It could well be that because of the power the Supreme Court has given to the federal government, that it is impossible to get back to small-government conservatism.
The reason for limiting power is that if you don’t limit power, you’ll never limit reach. Since the feds have the power to meddle, we are lost — you simply won’t be able to elect enough politicians to actually STOP the reach of government into every place they have the POWER to do so.
The constitution protected the people from their own worst instinct, to have someone else take responsibility for the problems of our lives. That protection has been destroyed, and without it we are voting ourselves out of the office of “boss of ourselves”.
I’m wondering if there is a single government program that we could even get 80% of the republicans to agree should be eliminated?
Still, Fred is better than most on this, and it’s one of the things I am hopeful about with his candidacy.
that choice will boil down to Fred or Rudy.
That's what I'm looking for!
that choice will boil down to Fred or Rudy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a ticket featuring both.
My respect for Fred will fall dramatically if he welcomes a shameless huckster like Rudy onto his ticket.
Ping
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
These weren't even attempts to use big-govermnent for conservative ends - they were just attempts to buy votes by expanding government period.
Yeah, but you're not going to GET real government reform until you nominate and elect someone who already HAS the smaller government record - FDT.
Baloney. Fred is a self-professed long time federalist and by definition that means he supports limited government. You don't get more conservative than that. Fred wants to resurrect Reagan's Executive Order #12612, which ordered each government entity look at ways to adhere to the Founder's ideas of original intent, aka. federalism.
"A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
~~~ Fred Thompson, LINK
Federalism
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Fred is a limited government conservative. And he has written about ideas on shrinking the size of federal government. Lots of work on mismanagement.
But the other part of the picture is people in Congress. We need to elect people to represent us in the Congress to cut spending and find ways to shrink the government. One of Fred’s ideas was changing the circumstances of civil service, to help us cut the numbers of employees. I’m sure there are other ideas.
Congress passes the laws, the president signs or vetos. Sometimes lobbies Congress. The president uses the bully pulpit to ask for things. It does not fall entirely on the shoulders of the president. I’m sure regardless of what Fred would do as president, you would not be happy about it.
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a federal government of limited and defined powers, with most governmental activity taking place at the state and local levels. This fundamental principle of "federalism," embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been circumvented in recent decades as the federal government has infringed on state sovereignty and concentrated more power in Washington. Senator Thompson has been working to reverse this trend and to return power to states and communities. He has been an independent voice for a smaller federal government, and has cast his vote against measures to federalize what should be state and local issues.There is renewed interest in the relationship between the federal government, states and localities as Congress seeks to improve the effectiveness of federal programs and determine which programs are best administered at the state or local levels. The federal presence in state and local government is large, witnessed by the fact that federal grants comprise 23 percent of total state spending. However, many things required by the federal government are never paid for by the federal government. Senator Thompson is concerned with the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, which force our nation's governor's, mayors, and other state and local elected officials to raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for them.
The Tenth Amendment was designed to protect states from Washington's big government tendencies � but this pillar of our Democracy was attacked by the Clinton Administration. In 1998, President Clinton tried to overturn the long-standing Reagan executive order on federalism with a new order that justified federal intervention in state and local affairs. Senator Thompson offered an amendment on the Senate floor, which passed unanimously, calling on the President to revoke his executive order. The new executive order was suspended shortly thereafter.
In June of 1999, Senator Thompson introduced the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214). The bill was approved by a bi-partisan vote of 12-2 by the Governmental Affairs Committee in August of that year, but did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The Federal Accountability Act would have required the report accompanying any public bill or joint resolution from a Senate and House committee or conference report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill or resolution preempts state or local government law and the reasons for this preemption. The Act would also have established a rule of construction providing that courts would not construe a statute or regulation to preempt state or local law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct conflict with state law.
When Fred gives us a list of government programs he wants to cut or eliminate, I’ll be listening.
I was noting that he doesn’t have a record in the Senate of voting to eliminate government programs. He has a good record, just not one of shrinking the government.
Limited government is not the same as “small government” anymore, the way most “limited government” politicians have voted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.