Thompson/Watts '08!
Posted on 03/17/2007 6:59:35 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Fred Dalton Thompson's flirtation with a presidential run has conservatives hopeful for a white knight in a field of compromise candidates in the GOP. The man whose career has spanned both Washington and Hollywood, and who has championed both conservatism and clean government, has a resumé that would make for compelling political theater. However, one issue in particular dogs every mention of his potential, and that is his support for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold -- the main reason conservatives distrust John McCain and have not supported his own presidential campaign.
That may be changing. John Fund interviewed Thompson for the Wall Street Journal, and Thompson acknowledged the futility of the BCRA's approach:
On issues, he addresses head-on the major complaints conservatives have about his record. He was largely stymied in his 1997 investigation of both Clinton-Gore and GOP campaign fund-raising abuses: Key witnesses declined to testify or fled the country, though evidence eventually surfaced of a Chinese plan to influence U.S. politics. He won't argue with those who say he showed "naiveté" about how he would be stonewalled in his investigation. He says he's wiser now.
Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.
Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."
If Thompson rejects the BCRA, the implications could be significant. None of the sponsors or supporters of the bill would have the national reach Thompson will if he runs, with the exception of McCain himself. Thompson's change of heart would put immediate pressure on McCain and perhaps even jump-start the effort to repeal the law altogether. If Thompson makes it a campaign issue, he could immediately siphon off conservative support for other campaigns. (Romney pledged to repeal the BCRA at CPAC earlier this month.)
That would not be the entirety of Thompson's attractiveness, either. He spoke with Fund about cleaning up the CIA, one topic that never seems to go away despite all of the post-9/11 efforts to reform the agency and the intel community as a whole. He wants to promote federalism, ending programs that should be handled by the states and curtailing the overreach of the national government. Thompson also supports the extension of the Bush tax cuts, telling Fund that the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations have proven that lowering taxes creates long-term economic growth, and that "millionaires serving in the Senate learned not to overly tax other people trying to get wealthy."
All of this puts Thompson squarely in the Reagan mold, along with a track record of real reform. If Thompson grabs the anti-BCRA banner, he could carry it all the way to the White House
Run, Fred, RUN!
It's Saturday morning...
All other considerations aside, this should make all opponents of McCain-Feingold proud. Here we have the man who was primarily responsible for moving M-F through to passage into law virtually admitting defeat and very near to moving to a truly constitutional position. In other words, we've won the debate.
The campaign finance laws, as currently written, almost extinguish free speech as the individual citizen's voice is obliterated by the noise generated by union funds, corporate funds, media bias, government itself, etc.
A corporation or union should not have a voice louder than a citizen.
In my perfect world (they have not banned all thought yet), the only money allowed would be $xxxx per citizen. No unions, no corporate, no anything else but just individuals. That is the only way to "attempt" to protect free speech.
Why should the CSEA (communist, socialist, employee association) be allowed to drown out the voice of the taxpayers who pay their wages?
Please add me to your Fred Thompson ping list.
It also appears he is going to run, otherwise he would not be bothering to give the interviews and take positions like he is.
Add me to Fred Thompson ping list.
"The best part of that interview with Fund is that Thompson clearly gets it when it comes to federalism. The Senate voted 99-1 to impose a federal BAC of .08 when driving and Thompson was the one to vote against it because it's a state issue, not a federal one. Common sense really, but apparently it went over the head of the other 99 senators who were more worried about "voting for drunk driving" than respecting federalism. He also voted against a ton of other bills that were clear abuses of the interstate commerce clause. I could really get behind this guy."
WOW...the more I learn about Fred the more I like him!!! A Republican with guts - a rare breed these days. I'm impressed.
ConservativeDude wrote: "Wow, interesting ideal.
Hey, let's call it 'free speech' and let's amend the Constitution to protect it. We should have an amendment which says that 'Congress shall make no law which prohibits free speech'. Then, we'd be good to go!"
Oh, come on, ConservativeDude. You and I both know that campaign contributions were not what the the founders had on their minds when they wrote the First Amendment.
Their concern was that citizens should be free to speak out against the Government without fear of reprisal from it. And they didn't want to have an American version of the Church of England.
In their day, it didn't take a zillion dollars to run for political office, LOL!
For what are campaign donations intended, other than to speak out against government by promoting of condemning a candidate?
NittanyLion wrote: "For what are campaign donations intended, other than to speak out against government by promoting of (sic) condemning a candidate?"
But you can promote or condemn a candidate by sending a letter to the editor of your local paper, posting on an internet forum or going door to door to talk to people about the candidates. You can put up a yard sign, plaster a bumper sticker on the family ride, wear a button, or stand at an intersection holding up a sign that says, "Throw the bums out!" or anything else you want it to say. You can wear a cap or a t-shirt with your candidate's picture on it.
You don't have to give large sums of cash to a pol to show your support for that pol or your dislike of his or her opponent. There are many other ways of making your voice heard about political candidates.
That's why campaign cash is constitutionally not a free speech issue. Like Thompson said on FNS, "We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them. I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world."
And he's right.
That McCain-Feingold with its loopholes and all wasn't the right way to reform campaign funding doesn't change the fact that campaign funding needs to be reformed.
But, but Rudy can win.
Thanks for posting this! The full WSJ Opinion Journal article is a must-read too.
It's loaded with great Fred quotes:
"What if someone harnessed the Internet and other technologies and insisted in talking about real issues in more depth than consultants would advise? What if they took risks with their race in hopes that the risks to our children could be reduced through building a mandate for good policy?"
"I'm consistent. I address Federalist Society meetings."
"Audits have shown we've lost control of the waste and mismanagement in our most important agencies. It's getting so bad it's affecting our national security."
"The CIA has better politicians than it has spies."
"Should we tie ourselves up in bureaucratic knots with the challenges we may have to face?"
"Reagan showed what can be done if you have the will to push for tough choices and the ability to ask the people to accept them."
"Lower marginal tax rates have proven to be a key to prosperity now by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. It's time millionaires serving in the Senate learned not to overly tax other people trying to get wealthy."
And one that hints that he's leaning toward running: "With my current schedule I might have more time to myself if I gave all this up and did start a campaign."
By that logic, because we have newspapers, cable news could be abolished without infringing upon freedom of speech.
Just because I can put up a yard sign doesn't mean I shouldn't also be able to pool money with likeminded individuals and place an ad in a local paper or on a local TV station.
He won't argue with those who say he showed "naiveté" about how he would be stonewalled in his investigation. He says he's wiser now.
This is very Reagan-like. Reagan would always address his mistakes with a look of anger. He would tilt his head and say to the effect "I've been down that road before and I'm not going there again. Instead we have a new idea....".
FDT seems a natural. With the right campaign management he could garner more than 60% of the vote and if he has the right issues and timing he could approach 70%.
BUMP!!!!!!
Yeah .. like Nancy Pelosi's lag of 5 YEARS REPORTING ON TRIPS SHE HAD TAKEN THAT OTHERS PAID FOR.
could anyone imagine a Thompson/Cheney ticket?
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.