Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson

He disappointed conservatives during his eight years in the Senate. Is there any reason to think this Washington insider and veteran trial lawyer would be any better as President?

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the “new Reagan”—a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton’s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, “A Star Is Born.”

He turned out to be a shooting star—a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, “A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet.”

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House’s Asia fundraising scandal (“Asiagate”), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative. In fact, now that he’s running for President, Thompson is trying to flip-flop on this issue. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide from his record.

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose—its claim to being a “reform”—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it’s been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of “reform” legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren’t threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups.

McCain-Feingold, the most prominent recent addition to campaign regulations, does this by prohibiting these groups from broadcasting any issue ads that refer to specific candidates for federal office in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election.

Why were those dates chosen? Because “that’s when people are most interested in the elections,” according to Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), one of the law’s most ardent supporters. In other words, McCain-Feingold and similar laws are intended to silence the voices of ordinary citizens who contribute to these organizations. And they are designed to do so at exactly the times when grassroots citizens can have the greatest impact.

The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson. Indeed, campaign finance “reform” was the only issue on which he seemed to show any passion.

Thompson was deeply involved in writing the law, lobbied for it among his fellow Republicans, and was even inclined to call it “McCain-Feingold-Thompson.” He and McCain were able to convince only five of their fellow Republicans in the Senate—but added to the Democrats, that was enough. “You were essential to our success,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Thompson in a gushing thank-you note after passage of McCain-Feingold.

Fred Thompson viewed through the Goldwater Test and the Reagan Test for conservative leadership

The Goldwater Test: Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhower’s policies were “a dime store New Deal,” he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.

Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now it’s no longer a dime store New Deal—it’s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.

And what has been Fred Thompson’s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he’s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he’s said it so quietly that nobody—not just us, nobody—has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit.

The Reagan Test: Throughout the 1960s and 70s Ronald Reagan walked with conservatives. He was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table—he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood. Also, our conservative friends were all around him as he governed in California and then ran for President—people like Dick Allen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Marty Anderson, Paul Laxalt, Judge Bill Clark…and the list goes on.

Where are the long-time conservative activists today around Fred Thompson? Not campaign consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder at campaign auctions. No, dedicated and recognized conservative thinkers and activists who will work only for truly conservative politicians.

Go ahead, try and name one. And if conservatives were not part of his inner circle before he started running for the presidency, we cannot expect him to have conservatives in his inner circle if he gets elected. And in politics, personnel is policy.

When we look at the two politicians who are closest to Thompson—Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander—we can see very clearly why Fred will never be a conservative leader, much less a conservative hero.

Fred Thompson and Howard Baker are as intertwined as the two sides of a coin. Fred Thompson was Howard Baker’s campaign manager in his successful reelection campaign in 1972, after which the two were good ole’ Tennessee buddies. Senator Baker invited Thompson to move up north and be minority (Republican) counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of Richard Nixon.

Thompson, it is said, was the person who got Senator Baker to ask a Nixon aide: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The reply led to the discovery of the Nixon tapes, and that led to Nixon’s resignation. Almost sounds like something scripted in Hollywood or on the set of “Law and Order.”

Thompson and Baker are still good ole’ buddies today, with Baker urging Thompson to make this run for the presidency and playing a key role in its unfolding. Officially or unofficially, we could expect Howard Baker to play a key role in a Thompson White House.

And who, you ask, is Howard Baker? You belie your age, of course, by asking that, but even old folks may be excused for a little fuzziness on this matter. Well, Howard Baker was one of the chain of leaders of the liberal (Big Government) wing of the Republican Party. The order of succession was Nelson Rockefeller-Howard Baker-George H. W. Bush-George W. Bush. Because he never got to the White House as its #1 or #2 occupant, Howard Baker has sort of faded into history, but he was important in his heyday—and on the opposite side of the ideological fence from conservatives.

As Republican leader of the Senate, Howard Baker worked with President Carter to turn the Panama Canal over to the drug-running Panamanian dictatorship. He voted to spend taxpayers’ money for abortions. As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he said Reagan’s proposed tax cuts were “a riverboat gamble.” You get the picture. And this guy is still Fred Thompson’s closest advisor.

As for Senator Lamar Alexander (who’s up for reelection in 2008), he’s cut from the same cloth as Baker and Thompson—talk conservative but act like a “moderate” (i.e., liberal); above all, avoid sharp ideological confrontation with the Democrats. “The conservatism he exemplifies…,” wrote Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine, “is no longer a program. It is a style of talking.”

Like Thompson, Lamar Alexander got his first job in Washington from Howard Baker; and when Thompson dropped out of the Senate in 2002 to return to lobbying, trial lawyering, and show biz, Alexander replaced him.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, because Fred Thompson passes the Sally Quinn Test

Fred Thompson may get an F on the Goldwater Test and an F on the Reagan Test, but he gets an A on the Sally Quinn Test. And that tells us a lot.

Sally Quinn is a noted writer and the wife of Ben Bradlee, long-time editor of the Washington Post. You can’t get more to the center of the Liberal Establishment in Washington than this power-couple. And on June 26, 2007, she penned a telling bombshell in the Post on Fred Thompson.

Vice President Dick Cheney is “toxic” and “has the potential to drag down every member of the party—including the presidential nominee—in next year’s elections,” she advises, so the movers and shakers in the GOP must convince President Bush to force Cheney to resign.

“Until recently, there hasn’t been an acceptable alternative to Cheney…,” she admits. “Now there is.” (And by now you can guess who.)

“Everybody loves Fred,” gushes Sally. “He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor. He could be just the partner to bring out Bush’s better nature…”

I had never known Sally Quinn to be so concerned before about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and I am shocked that she allows for even the possibility of a “better nature” in President Bush. Be that as it may, we can see what’s going on here. She rightfully sees Fred Thompson as a marshmallow—oops, I mean “peacemaker” and “compromiser.” As the sitting Vice President in 2008, he would have the inside track on getting the GOP nomination. And liberals could rest easy, knowing their power is safe whether the Democrat or the Marshmallow Republican wins in 2008.

I have examined Fred Thompson’s eight-year record as a Senator in detail, utilizing the vote ratings of the American Conservative Union (ACU) at www.acuratings.org. He emerges not as an out-and-out liberal, but not as a principled conservative either.

Fred Thompson’s record may appear to be “conservative,” but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.

For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didn’t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume it’s because that’s what he believed.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

There’s a lot of confusion about where Fred Thompson stands on the abortion issue.

During his Senate years, the Memphis Commercial Appeal described him as “basically pro-choice on abortion,” The Tennessean described him as “a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt,” and National Review deemed him to be “pro-choice.”

Yet his voting record as a Senator was solidly pro-life, earning him high marks on pro-life voting records and bottom-of-the-barrel ratings from abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Leaders of social conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum have had praise for his social-issues record.

How can this be? How can the conservative National Review and Tennessee’s leading newspapers describe him as “pro-choice” when his voting record is the opposite? The confusion results largely because Thompson takes—to use one of Washington’s favorite words—a “nuanced” position on abortion, and then sometimes compounds the confusion with conflicting statements. In addition, his role as a Washington Insider—a Washington lobbyist—raises disturbing questions that have not been answered satisfactorily by Thompson.

One of Fred Thompson’s deepest held political convictions is his belief in federalism—that the federal government should stick to the powers granted it in the Constitution, leaving everything else to the states or the people. That’s great--if he actually voted as a federalist on the host of issues ranging from presidential power to education. The one area where he does take a pretty consistent federalist position, however, is on the abortion question.

“I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision,” Thompson says, and “that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.”

Because he believes abortion essentially should be a state matter, not a federal matter, Thompson has voted repeatedly against federal funding of abortion in Department of Defense facilities and says he opposes public financing of abortions for low-income Medicaid recipients. The same federalist reasoning, however, is presumably what also leads him to oppose (in a Christian Coalition questionnaire) a constitutional amendment “protecting the sanctity of human life” as well as federal legislation “protecting the sanctity of human life.” I say “presumably” because Fred Thompson himself has never really explained his seemingly conflicted statements and positions on abortion in a comprehensive and logical way.

Thompson is not against abortion per se, since he says he doesn’t know whether life begins at conception. At least that was the position he took before he started running for President.

“I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions,” he told the Conservative Spectator, a Tennessee newspaper, in 1994. “It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.” “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,” he told another newspaper. And in his Christian Coalition questionnaire, he penciled in: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This matter will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

Note that when he explained why he opposes Roe v. Wade on federalism grounds, he ended up saying: “When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.” “Leeway” obviously is code for “the states should allow some abortions.”

Thompson has, however, voted consistently against partial birth abortion. There’s no doubt that life has started in those late-term situations.

Fred Thompson the “conservative” politician vs. Fred Thompson the pro-abortion lobbyist

New information uncovered by the Los Angeles Times indicates that Thompson has lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights organization.

The official minutes of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) document that the group hired Thompson in 1991 to try to influence the George H. W. Bush Administration to loosen the restrictions that prevented federal funding from going to clinics that engage in abortion counseling.

Thompson’s support for federal funding of abortion is vividly recalled by the President of the NFPRHA, Judy DeSarno; the Director of Government Relations, Sarah Szanton; and a member of the Board of Directors, Susan Cohen.

To be fair, Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, has denied ever talking to Thompson about abortion. That may mean that Thompson either spoke to other officials in the White House or took the NFPRHA’s money and did nothing for them.

He would personally rejoice if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, at least according to some of his statements on abortion. For the sake of argument, let us grant him that sentiment. But if vacancies occur in the court during his presidency, would he have the fortitude to nominate and fight for judges who share his federalist sentiments and on that basis vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? And would he do so particularly if he faced a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, as seems likely?

Nothing in his past suggests that he would fight. The Nelson Rockefeller/Howard Baker/Poppy Bush wing of the party, of which Thompson is an integral part by virtue of the umbilical cord between Thompson and Baker, has always believed in accommodation rather than confrontation. You accommodate the Democrats, as Thompson himself did in his “Asiagate” investigation, and you can bet your entire rainy-day fund that the Democrats won’t accommodate a Supreme Court nominee who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Accommodation on this issue is a one-way street. Any accommodation would be done by President Thompson.

As far as other abortion-related politicking is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that abortion is a key issue anywhere near the top of Fred Thompson’s “to do” list. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” was Senator Thompson excuse, as told to The Tennessean. And later, when a pro-abortion group needed a Republican Insider to represent its views at the White House, we now know—from the minutes of the group’s meetings—who they turned to: Washington lobbyist Fred Thompson.

In short, a President Thompson would give pro-life conservatives some supportive rhetoric but little action. So what else is new?

Fred Thompson was a key architect of one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent years—the speech-muzzling McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Fred Thompson cast votes in the Senate that increased the power of the federal government, limited the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and sought to shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Fred Thompson fails the Goldwater Test with a grade of F: He did not speak out against the Republican Big Government rampage of the past seven years.

Fred Thompson fails the Reagan Test with a grade of F: He has never walked with us or surrounded himself with conservatives or fought our fights.

Fred Thompson has instead been a protégé of one of the icons of liberal Republicanism, Howard Baker, who continues to be his key advisor.

Fred Thompson plays a tough guy in the movies and on television, but in real life he is a marshmallow who would pose no threat to the Big Government Establishment that continues to dominate Washington.

Fred Thompson is, in fact, a Washington insider and part of that Big Government Establishment through his eight years as a go-along Senator and even more years as a trial lawyer and Washington lobbyist.

For the past year, I have been preaching to conservatives that we should not align ourselves with those who have fatal flaws from a conservative perspective. The imminent entrance of Fred Thompson in the race doesn’t change a thing, for the reasons I have demonstrated here.

Conservatives, let’s keep our powder dry. The GOP has taken us for granted in supporting their political agenda. Conservatives should make candidates come to us, and let’s make them prove that they are worthy of our support.

I'll admit up front, there is a lot about FDT that sticks in my gullet. I am a hardcore grassrooter, though, a political grunt--no more, no less. I'm the type who knocks on doors in the rain, in the sweltering heat, anytime I can; I am not only the phone banker many of you hang up on, I am the idiot who organized the phone bank party to begin with. I am in touch with the little guy who never misses a voting opportunity because I am that little guy. Allright, gal, whatever. I have come to know the little guy very well, and I believe I have come to know how he votes very well.

What the little guys want most of all is a GOP candidate who will stand a chance at beating Obama or Clinton (us little folks know one of them will be the dem candidate. Our Magic 8 balls concur). Right now, only two GOP candidates come close to that--Giuliani and Thompson. The sad fact is, when it comes to the bigger races--national seats, POTUS--electability is far more important than stance on the issues. Thompson and Giuliani are far more electable than the other GOP candidates, for the plain and simple fact that they are so well known both within and outside of their parties. You won't find me saying a word against the other guys (well, McCain...). The GOP needs more men like Hunter and Paul.

Unfortunately, those men do not have a chance of winning the primary, let alone the general. They don't. It won't happen, and you can bookmark my saying so. That leaves us with two possibilities for the GOP ticket.

This little gal, and most of the little guys and gals like me--the grunts, the grassrooters, the hardcore voters--will not lift a finger to get Giuliani elected POTUS, even if it means sitting back and watching Obama or Clinton win. There's almost no difference between the three of them! Thompson is the man who can beat the opposition, and most of us can vote for him without regurgitating. Personally, I'll go further: I actually like the guy.

M2c, fwiw

I'm only the messenger here--They shoot messengers, don't they?

Too many posts so will just add a transcript, as am not going to take the time to read it all.

First I will say times changes all, just as Bush may well be perceived down the road in his legacy.

Here's what Fred Thompson recently said about his support of the McCain-Feingold bill on Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Federalism. All right, let me -- the other issue, you were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?

THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.

I said, "Let's raise the hard money legitimate limits that we've always had from $1,000" -- it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that's a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.

HANNITY: But 60 days before a general, 30 days before a primary...

THOMPSON: That's not working.

HANNITY: That's not working?

THOMPSON: It shouldn't work.

HANNITY: You would repeal that?

THOMPSON: Yes.

We cannot let pass without some note Thompson’s insinuation that political contributions are bribes, or that they purchase policy preferences in officeholders, or that the people for whom policy matters most are least entitled to contribute. We believe Thompson is wrong on all counts.

Further, we note that the higher individual to candidate contribution limits that Thompson touted on Hannity & Colmes and sponsored in McCain-Feingold (from $1000 in the year 1974 to $2000 in 2002, with the aggregate rising from $25,000 per year to $97,500 every two years), barely made up for half the erosion of inflation; and the limits weren't raised at all for small contributors joined together as PACs. We at CCP believe that contributions limits entrench the establishment in various quarters, and that all contribution limits could stand to be raised substantially again. But as it stands, the soft money prohibitions to political party committees won't soon be repealed (or, better put, Congress will not soon voluntarily allow parties to raise unlimited funds for any purpose), so Thompson's amendment did at least mitigate the long-term damage from McCain-Feingold. We would feel better, though, if Thompson had used the opportunity on Hannity & Colmes to state clearly his support for further increases in contribution limits, increases that would at least bring the current limits back to their original 1974 buying power - which would roughly require doubling the limits now in place.

All that aside, it’s a little disingenuous for Senator Thompson to say that his support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations was all about raising contribution limits. While Thompson, to his credit, voted against the Wellstone Amendment (that effectively extended the 30- and 60-day bans on corporate- or union-treasury funded advertising to any incorporated non-profit) he voted for the underlying Snowe-Jeffords amendment, which imposed the ban but allowed incorporated non-profits to get around it if they paid for ads from a separate fund containing donations only from individuals. And, of course, he voted for the final bill, Wellstone Amendment and all.

To say that Thompson's contribution to McCain-Feingold was to add a bit here or there on contribution limits is an understatement. Here is none other than Sen. McCain appearing on CNN, April 2, 2001, after the bill passed the Senate: "But without the individuals who are here, Russ [Feingold] and I could not have succeeded [in passing McCain-Feingold]. I chronicled that before, but the negotiations conducted between Fred Thompson and Dianne Feinstein were critical.”

It is possible McCain is correct; that McCain-Feingold could not have succeeded without Thompson’s efforts. Even beyond his efforts in negotiating the final bill, the fact that McCain-Feingold passed the Senate 60-40 suggests that opposition by Thompson might have been enough to stop the bill with a filibuster (cloture passed 68-32, but some senators voted for cloture once it was clear it cloture would be invoked).

But good enough -- we don't mind giving a guy room to recognize and retreat gracefully from a mistake. We understand that “reform” is something politicians find tough to oppose. Waffling too obviously is dangerous in politics, as John Kerry will tell you, and politicians can’t always be sure that the unforgiving voter even knows what’s already illegal and what needs "reform."

But time does provide policy (and political) lessons that politicians like Thompson are beginning to heed. Few people think McCain-Feingold has made our democracy better or stronger, so in that most simple respect it is an obvious failure. Moreover, political consequences are being paid by others - or at least one other - who prominently championed the law. McCain-Feingold remains the symbolic rock that divides Senator John McCain from Republican primary voters. McCain-Feingold, and the excitement it generated amongst a credulous media, made John McCain a contender for the 2000 nomination. It may now be what prevents him from gaining the 2008 nomination.

In closing, as a matter of policy, we prefer Thompson’s other recent statement on McCain-Feingold and campaign finance law: “[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.” Unlike some, we do not find it a sin for a politician to change his mind in light of experience. We hope that Senator Thompson will continue to rethink his position, and will decide to make reform of past reform - perhaps in the form of higher contribution limits - a cause he will champion.

Center for Competitive Politics

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.