Is Fred Thompson a Small-Government Conservative? (asks libertarian Cato Institute)

Cato At Liberty ^ | May 31, 2007

[radioman]

Fred is a federalist and supports the constitution, that should please the libertarian types.

Many libertarians like Fred. The Presidential Scouting Reports gives a good libertarian run down on the candidates.
.

[ellery]

I’m a staunch Thompson supporter, but if the nomination came down to Thompson, Romney or Hunter, I’d be pretty happy. I could vote for the latter two in the general, which is more than I can say for Giuliani and McCain.

[ellery]

Come on! Libertarians are anti-federalist.

What are you talking about???

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Conventional wisdom might say no, but conventional wisdom is proven wrong so often that it's a wonder anyone bothers listening to it anymore.

In my own personal analysis, it is going to take the right candidate to win the general election in 2008. The right candidate has the following qualifications:

1) He is not divisive. Bush is divisive and there are a lot of people who would gladly vote Republican that just plain HATE GWB.

2) He can excite the base. No candidate since Reagan has excited the base. Conservatives have voted against the democrat since 1988. Giving them someone to vote FOR would be a welcome change.

When the Republican base is excited about something, they talk about it. When they talk, they make sense and fencesitters listen to sense. That goes a long way to bringing them on board. That's how we lost the 2006 election. It wasn't over Iraq. It was because we were all so disillusioned with the Republicans that we couldn't even give anyone a good reason why they were better. All we could say was 'Speaker Pelosi'. We all know how that turned out. The same thing will happen if all we say is 'President Hillary'.

3) He can communicate. Not only just communicate, but communicate in a straightforward manner, making the issues of the day simple and understandable to the average voter. This is something that has been sorely lacking in the White House for the past 6 years. Communication isn't only about being able to deliver a great speech. Communication is about having a command of the issues, not being afraid to say what you mean, and not having to triangulate every issue to death. Good communication comes from people knowing that you are grounded in your knowledge and principles and have the ability to express them without reservation.

So, how on earth can Fred be that candidate that is both not divisive AND exciting to the base? Well, if you look closely at Fred, you'll see he fits the bill perfectly. When he speaks, it's not about right and left. It's about common sense. Most conservatism is just that: common sense.

Taking the above as a given, let's see how the other candidates measure up:

1) Rudy Giuliani

Divisiveness -- BIGTIME. But not among the electorate at large. He's more divisive among Republicans and conservatives. This isn't only to do with abortion and gay rights issues, as many would have it painted. Looking into Rudy's record shows a guy that has been liberal on most things and rabidly so. He's gone against the party on so many things in the past, that it is not unreasonable to assume that promises made to conservatives will be broken once he is in office. For these reasons (and many more), Rudy is mistrusted by a large part of the conservative base. They don't hate him. They just don't trust him.

Excitability -- Very little, due to the divisiveness problem. Also, he's shown a tin ear when it comes to issues that might make people come over to him and actually hold their nose on other things and support him. Most of the support that Rudy has comes from people convinced that we need to basically run a Dem to beat a Dem. People that are literally so afraid of Hillary that they can't see that they'd be completely giving in on the entire Republican party platform to win one single election. That's winning a battle and losing a war. A lot of us see it that way and especially after 8 years of Bush ruining the party, we can't imagine 4-8 years of Rudy continuing to pound nails in the coffin of the conservative movement.

Communication -- Here, Rudy is okay. He can give a good speech. He's quick on his feet sometimes. Not all the time, but sometimes. But he's always triangulating. He's always moderating his language so that what he is saying means nothing. Check out his statement on the day that the immigration bill was announced. What a bunch of gobbledygook. It meant nothing. Again, it is in this area that he shows a tin ear to what conservatives really want. Whenever he seems to have a chance to bring us to his side, he flounders. Something tells me that's because he doesn't want us on his side and there's a reason for that.

2) Mitt Romney

Divisiveness -- Not much. But there isn't much really to this guy to be upsetting anyone except conservatives that look at his past record of liberalism in Mass. He says the right things now though. Mitt's not divisive. He's just blah.

Excitability -- Next to none. I wish I could understand what Mitt's rabid supporters see in him that makes them so sure he's the guy. Most people I know, both here on FR and in the real world, say they COULD vote for Mitt, but aren't really motivated about it. He's just blah.

Communication -- Gives a great speech, no doubt about that. But one gets the feeling that the words are empty. Everything is so rehearsed and so polished. So triangulated and designed for certain affects at a certain time. He's like RoboCandidate.

3) John McCain

Is finished, so let's not bother...fingers need a rest.

4) Newt Gingrich

Divisiveness -- WHOA!!! THis dude is the Gingrich that stole Christmas? Need I say more?

Excitability -- Not seeing any. We all like the guy, but I haven't heard one person tell me that they're excited about him running for president.

Communication -- Excellent. One of the best, both at speeches, and at meaning what he says. He definitely fits the communication bill. If only it wasn't for all that pesky other stuff...

5) Fred Dalton Thompson

So, how do I know that Fred Thompson is the right candidate? It isn't because I just love the guy and want to see him win. It's because he logically fits the bill in every way.

If I may illustrate:

To illustrate how divisive Fred Thompson is, we'll need to hold our noses and visit a nasty site called demorcrats.org. Put your hip boots on prior to entry:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/the_fred_thomps.php

Check the comments there. Keep in mind that this is a hit piece on Fred Thompson on a Democrat website. Check the moonbat response and see how many of them agree with Fred. That is an example of the crossover appeal of Fred Thompson as a candidate. There are other examples, even threads at DU that go to show that they just can't hate this guy no matter how hard they try. Now, if the hardcore nutroots have this kind of feeling about the guy, think about what kind of affect he'll have on the average Dem.

I don't think we need to illustrate how excited the base is, since it is evident on this site. But if you think it's limited to this site, you're mistaken. I'm having difficulty finding a link to it, but Rush Limbaugh gave a performance about a month ago. He said "I want to test something." He then, said the words "Fred Thompson" and stepped away from the mic. The crowd litereally erupted into a screaming roar at the very mention of his name. The base loves this guy.

I did find a link, however of a great explanation of Fred's popularity from a blogger named Josh Allem:

http://joshallem.blogspot.com/2007/04/whats-so-special-about-fred.html

That brings us to communication.

Here is an excellent example of Fred at his very best. This particular clip comes from BEFORE 9/11. It shows an example, not only of a guy with fantastic communications skills, but of a guy who definitely 'gets it'. Even when 'getting it' wasn't all that popular.

http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/PlayVideo.cfm?speakerid=3996&contentid=484&type=mov&res=high

Here's a bit from his speech in Connecticut last week that deals with immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H3zhZu0S5w

Here's the entire speech in CT:

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-in-ct-the-full-video.html

Here's the Thompson interview that Josh Allem is talking about in his monalogue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snw7_6mJf5c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I

Here is Fred's speech at the Lincon Club last month, which some folks, (mostly Robert Novak) were not very impressed with. I enjoyed the speech. Admittedly, it wasn't Fred's best speech ever, but I still thought it was quite good. This is in 4 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJ5dy_MTxY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6th2VJDWO0Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8rwX_mzvQQ

Fred Thompson also has another quality that none of the other candidates have. He has an ability to manipulate the media and ideas that involve using the internet in new ways during the course of his campaign. A little taste of this can be had by looking into the now famous sparring that Fred had with Michael Moore several weeks ago.

That incident started with This idiotic challenge from Michael Moore.

This was Fred's response:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=208

I hope this clears up why some of us support Fred and where our thinking is on why Fred is the guy that can not only win, but just maybe turn conventional wisdom on it's ear.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

He wouldn’t get a pass at all if he were acting like McCain and pretending that it’s not a resounding failure.

Fred has come out against it and admitted that it is not working as intended. He hasn’t gone all the way to calling for a repeal, but he’s come very close.

That’s not really ‘getting a pass’.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Fred is a federalist and supports the constitution, that should please the libertarian types

We're doomed. Now those who support the constitution and believe in federalism (as opposed to those who are statists and believe the constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper"??????) are a fringe group within "conservatives" who must be appeased, rather than the core of the party. Kind of like Lee Atwater urging GHW Bush to "quote em a couple of bible verses and that will satisfy them" (re: religious conservatives). Sometimes Free Republic scares me way more than DU.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Come on! Libertarians are anti-federalist.

No they are not! Federalism is a philosophy where political power is divided BETWEEN the states and the Fed. The problem is not the existence of a federal branch of government (which libertarianism does not resist), it is rather the usurpation of all power BY the fed, which the current “conservatives” seem to have no problem with at all as long it is for the “war on terror.”

[SuziQ]

Thompson was as responsible for McCain-Feingold as McCain was, yet he somehow gets a pass entirely on this issue.

Nope, Thompson actually disagreed with some of the original proposals with McCain-Feingold, though he supported it in its final form. He has since seen how it's been abused, and wants it changed or scrapped. He wasn't so much for all of what the measure stood for, he was just sick and tired of politicians being bought and sold by nameless faceless wealthy people and groups about whom people knew nothing. At the time, CFR was the only thing addressing the problem.

Fred Thompson was looking for complete openness in the campaign funding process. That way, folks know exactly WHO is supporting each candidate. He suggested that the amount allowed for personal political donations be increased to $5000, so that more money can be raised by smaller donors, and getting more individuals involved will mean that more citizens have a PERSONAL stake in who gets elected.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Fred is not an absolutist on the constitution. That won't sit well with some of us, but he is, with the exception of Ron Paul, the only constitutionalist running, especially running in the top tier. Duncan Hunter and Tancredo have some good campaign standards, but both spend more than I care for.

I agree with your points on campaign reform. The biggest and best "reform" would be to simply allow anyone to spend anything they wish, but demand full disclosure, and attach SEVERE penalties (possibly up to disqualification) in the event of non-disclosure. That way, everyone sees where the money is coming from. As long as there is power to be bought and had in DC, these races are going to become progressively more expensive, and the best we can hope for is accountability. McCain-Feingold is a great example of a bad solution to a real problem.

[NewRomeTacitus]

Some poor FReeps are compelled to "pimp & whore" while trolling for replies. It's not personal, its just political business as usual.

Thanks for "clearing the palette". It's a shame we've degraded so far as a society that too many otherwise-responsible citizens would give McCain's call for blanket amnesty a second hearing. Fred was overly cooperative with the Dems when he had the pull so deserves a thorough going over, IMO.

The question is who would be strong enough to resist the machine in place. Can that machine be fixed or replaced with a superior model less affected by corrosion/corruption? We need an American representing our interests over those of people who shouldn't be here at all. We need a champion.

[SittinYonder]

At the time, CFR was the only thing addressing the problem.

LOL ... that sounds just like Saxby Chambliss's excuse for this immigration deal in the Senate.

Campaign Finance Reform is an attack on the First Amendment. Ask the guy whose name is on it:

"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Thompson also served as McCain's campaign chairman.

I'm not attacking Thompson. I think his record needs some clarification if he's going to be running as the "conservative electable" candidate.

But trying to put a pretty face on McCain-Feingold ain't going to convince me that Thompson is "conservative" even if he is "electable."

[ZULU]

“Romney and Hunter pimps come poop in this thread.”

Pretty vulgar comment.

My first choice is Hunter, but I am nearly as enthused about Fred THompson. Romney is a distant third - he says what I want to hear for the most part, but his past record makes me uncomfortable.

JulieAnnie, McClown, etc - out of the running entirely.

[ZULU]

What is Thompson’s stand on the Second Amendment?