Fred Thompson has quietly tiptoed to the top of the polls among potential republican candidates. He’s gotten tons of free media by “considering†running, and avoided too much scrutiny by staying of the campaign trail and out of the debates. He polls well in part due to his acting career, playing a district attorney on Law and Order. The strong but politically mindful DA seems like an affable guy, although his real positions on the issues are still largely unpublicized.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.†That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president†makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.†Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.â€
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
See Michael Field’s Blog at www.fieldsforthought.blogspot.com Â
11 users commented in " This is Fred Thompson "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackMy website is MyManFred.com so I am going with Fred all the way, with an exception of the immanent nuclear on the USA perhaps by election time or bafore.
I have worked on all the atomic test. I hope Fred reads his website we keep for him and I invite all to see the urgent “Be Afraid America” posting I have on our website. You will be moved.
Don Jones
MyManFred.com
Assessing Our Elected Officials
by Bill Wheaton
Press Media Group, LLC
When we decide to cast out vote for a candidate, it is usually on the basis the positions they take on issues important to you. This may be hard to believe, but some politicians actually say one thing, and vote another.
So how do we know if our representatives vote the way they talk? When we were in school, we got a periodic report card which told our parents how well, or poor we were doing. Not being a very good student, I always dreaded report card time.
Thanks to The Family Foundation Action, we now have a legislative report card which scores all members of the Virginia General Assembly on key bills that are important Virginia families. There are many politicians who also dread this publication.
The 2006-2007 Report Card represents the ninth edition of this very useful publication.
The Family Foundation selects 20 of the most important bills to the family, out of the thousands introduced each year.
A sampling of the bills supported includes:
The Marriage Amendment, prohibiting homosexual marriage and civil unions (passed),
Repeal of the Death Tax (Passed)
Eminent Domain, strengthen private property rights (Failed in Senate),
Home School Teaching Criteria, allows parents with high school diploma to home school their children (Passed),
School Choice, would have provided a tax credit for attending private schools (Failed in Senate),
Tax Sunset, would have required a sunset date on new taxes (Failed in Senate),
Clinic Safety would have improved health and safety standards at abortion clinics (Failed in Senate).
Bills opposed included:
Domestic Partner Benefits, would have allowed local governments to offer health care to unmarried couples (Killed in House),
Tax Hike, would have increased tax on gasoline (Failed in House),
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding would have prevented taxpayer funds to be used, (Failed in Senate).
This type of public disclosure can put enormous pressure on elected officials who consistently vote in opposition to family-friendly issues. As a rule, Republicans tend to support family-friendly issues where Democrats tend to oppose them.
Even before this year’s General Assembly session was over, two of the worst offenders, Republican Senators John Chichester of Fredericksburg and Russ Potts of Winchester announced they would not seek re-election. Potts scored the lowest among all Republican Senators with a score of 42 percent. Chichester was not much better at 64 percent.
Senator Charles Hawkins also announced he would not seek re-election. He scored 71 and voted for a tax increase and domestic partnership benefits, and against the share the ride and school choice bills.
Five other Republican Senators with low ratings faced primary opposition this year, and two were defeated.
In Roanoke, Ralph Smith beat Senator J. Brandon Bell. Although Bell scored 89, he voted for a tax increase, and incurred the wrath of fiscal conservative Republicans. Bell also voted for domestic partnership benefits.
In Newport News, Patricia Stall handily beat Senator Marty E. Williams by a 54 to 46 margin. Williams scored 75 on the report card and voted for a tax increase, domestic partnership benefits, and video horse gambling.
Stall’s campaign manager, Pat Murphy, said that having beaten Williams, a three-term senator who raised nearly $500,000 to Stall’s $30,000, Democrats don’t frighten him.
However, it appears that some Republicans aren’t going to support Stall, and are willing to sacrifice the seat to the Democrats, which could give the Democrats control of the Senate.
Senator Walter Stosch of Glen Allen barely survived a challenge, by a mere 226 votes. Stosch scored 73 on the report card, and also voted for a tax hike and domestic partnership benefits and video horse gambling. He also opposed school choice.
AP political writer Bob Lewis commented, “Williams and Bell were rejected and Senate Majority Leader Walter Stosch of Henrico barely survived a conservative challenge largely for joining Democrats in 2004 to support a state fiscal reform package that boosted taxes by $1.4 billion.”
The Family Foundation Report Card came out too late to actually impact the primary elections, but it does help explain the results.
So how did our local elected officials do?
Senator Steve Newman scored 100 percent as did Lynchburg-raised Steve Martin who now resides in Chesterfield. They were the only members of the Senate to have a perfect score.
Senator Ken Cuccinelli of Fairfax, who is also a friend of mine, and Mark Obenshain of Harrisonburg scored second highest with a score of 92. Cuccinelli is anticipating a tough re-election fight this year as Fairfax has become even more liberal than it was when I left four years ago.
My former Senator in Fairfax, Democrat Dick Saslaw, scored 5 percent and at the bottom is Democrat Mamie Locke of Hampton who scored zero.
Over on the House side, Republican Delegates Kathy Byron (Campbell) and Ben Cline (Amherst) scored 100 percent, as did Independent Watkins Abbitt (Appomattox). They were three of 35 perfect scores.
Independent Lacey Putney of Bedford scored 95 percent.
Lynchburg Democrat Shannon Valentine scored 60 percent, voting against the marriage amendment, death tax repeal, eminent domain, home school criteria, tax sunset, school choice, and abortion clinic safety. She also voted for embryonic stem cell research.
The higher scoring Democrat in the Senate was Charles Colgan of Manassas with a score of 62
One Democrat in the House, Joe Johnson of Abingdon scored 100 percent, the second highest Democrat scored 75. Four Democrats scored zero, and 25 scored 25 percent or lower.
To obtain a copy of the report card, go to http://www.TFFAction.org, or pick up a copy at Thomas Terrace Baptist Church in Concord.
Bill Wheaton lives in Concord, VA. His email address is bwheaton@moreinformation.net
“He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure.”
No it is not a minority opinion – it is the law. Read the Constitution – the US Attnys serve at the pleasure of the President. Clinton fired all 93 of them when he took office.
No reason needed.
It is interesting that you criticize his position on Iran and you offer no solution. Typical liberal define a problem and whine about it.
You have your information wrong the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, Fred Thompson said there was nothing wrong with the firings. He did not just “suggest it”. The firing of members of the executive branch by the President was settled a long time ago with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. You may not like it, but I am sure you will be cheering if Clinton comes in a fires all of them like her husband did and his were a cover up to stop investigations. There have been hearings on the firings. No charges of illegality. So were is the smoke?
Oh one more thing, He thinks the prosecution of Scooter Libby was a political prosecution and that Libby should be pardoned immediately. Go Fred! Learn more about Fred Thompson at http://www.AnotherRonaldReagan.com
Well, I am not a supporter of Thompson, but I don’t think he said anything wrong. The real area where he is going to have problem is his strange position on abortion, as well as some issues with McCain-Feingold.
I am a supporter of Fred Thompson, and unless something drastic or unpredictable happens he is going to be the Republican Presidential candidate and I hope and pray the next president of the United States of America. You can make book on that. All the stuff that comes up in a negative vein about him now is smoke and mirrors and will not hold up. I really like the idea of Thompson/Lieberman as a ticket. Who could stand against it?
He Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998!!!
He Voted to kill programs that were intended to assist employers in verifying whether people they had just hired had the legal right to work in this country!!!!!
Sen. Thompson, in committee consideration of S.1664 protected businesses from having to pay higher fines when they are caught hiring illegal aliens!!!!
Voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S!!!
A VOTE FOR FRED IS A VOTE FOR AMNESTY!!!
Michael, I am not certain where to begin with this article. You have gotten so much wrong in this that I not certain I could respond in fewer words than what you used to spread these delusions but I will attempt to nonetheless.
The first point I will tackle is your assertion that Thompson’s positions on the issues have gone largely unpublished. The other ten candidates in the field have been virtually silent on specific issues, where they stand on Iraq, Iran, etc. These ten just talk in circles, Thompson has been clear where he stands. Any person of average intelligence (which means we leave out the far left loonies that currently run congress) knows that Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror, and must be won. Period end of discussion, it is not congress’ constitutional right to second guess the Commander in Chief in time of war.
Next you go on to state “Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power.” It certainly appears that you haven’t read the constitution because the constitution prescribes three coequal branches of government. It does not state that congress has a greater power than the Executive or Judicial branches, nor does the Executive have more power than the other two and so on. Thompson has clearly recognized that two branches of this government have taken over power not given to them in the constitution. In the case of the Judicial branch they have encroached on both the executive and legislative branches by making law from the bench, as well as overruling executive authority granted to the commander in chief. The legislative branch has assumed power they are not granted to manage the military, to believe the Commander in Chief is subordinate to the congress in matters of war is a serious violation of the constitution. As for your notion that the President can’t fire US Attorney’s you fail to understand that these are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President and it is completely legal for him to fire them for any reason he desires. Previous presidents have for much less than what Bush did. Thompson simply seeks a return to the constitution.
I go further with your statement: “You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy.” We place too much importance into what the world thinks of us. We are the world’s lone super power, we stand for freedom and the rule of law, and those that oppose us are largely socialists in old Europe and dictators in China and North Korea so we shouldn’t be listening to them anyway. The world needs to understand that if you attack us, if you harbor those that attack us, if you provide any support to our enemies then you are an enemy.
Our greatest problem with Iran is we are following the same course we did in Iraq in early 90’s. We are attempting to negotiate with people who have no intention of honoring any commitment they make. There are only two ways that the problem with Iran will be solved. The first if a revolution overthrows the current government and the replacement government is a democratically elected and does away with its nuclear program. The second solution is to militarily remove Iran’s weapons program and not only is it probable that it would succeed it would also probably lead to revolution in Iran that would insure that Iran is not a threat for many years to come. Your notion that it would destroy the world economy is as ludicrous as those that said the same thing prior to war in Iraq.
Perhaps you should research some facts before write, when you don’t you sound incompetent.
http://conservativesuperiority.com
It does appear that most the comments offered have targeted what stood out to me as glaring faults of this piece. There is a huge gap between an opinion and a fact (of law or otherwise). Some of the things that FTD has stated and owned as personal opinion, the author managed to shift to the realm of fact. Then instead of offering a “fact” to replace it, offers only his own opinion. Not the consistent thing in the world. Being able to distinguish between a fact and an opinion in discussion is pretty fundamental and basic. The most astounding statement is the author’s very last sentence. I do not personally know anyone who votes of a “TV persona.” I vote for a real live person. I think most sane people vote for real live people. I may not care for the real live person they choose to vote for, but please, give some credit for common sense. To imply that FTD the real person, might be different than Arthur Branch the fake DA (therefore a dangerous vote), flat out silly and is as different as apples and oranges. Or, should I say elephants and donkeys.
Most people opposed to Fred Thompson are simply too liberal and won’t be voting Republican anyway. Conservatives are excited to have a candidate who they can enthusiastically support. You shouldn’t underestimate how active and supportive conservatives can be when they have a candidate with a good change of winning. We will give til it hurts – financially and of our time. Fred is perfect, bright, articulate, lots of experience and likeable. It doesn’t hurt that he could have looked Lincoln in the eye, and had a good man to man talk.
Ole Fred will just be Bush III. He will fit right-in both evidently dim-bulbs with Chaney yanking the chain.
He already has Shrubs minions jumping on his bandwagen
Liz Chaney as foreign policy guru, with Dick probably being chairman of the
VP selection committee again. We know what happened last time, couldn’t find anyone better than himself.
But from my perspective coming from a conservative at the 30th parallel, which is deep deep south,
if Fred is the Republican nominee, then it will be a free ride back to the White House for Bill, Hill and Jimmy Carville. Is they maybe the reason that the MSM is enamored with “Ole Fred”
Leave A Reply