Santa Fred Explains The New Economy

A Supreme Error

Fred Thompson writing over at Townhall has this to say about the recent Supreme Court Guantanamo habeas corpus ruling:

"In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”

It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for "President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases.

People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.

I also find it just a tad ironic that in a case involving habeas corpus, which literally means that one must produce a body (or person) before a court to explain the basis on which that person is being detained, the decision of this court may mean more fallen bodies in the defense of a Constitution some of these justices ignored."

Republican Doesn't Necessarily Mean Conservative

I suppose it's never too late to try and re-brand the Republican Party....

....but Fred Thompson isn't in the race anymore.

They had their chance.

Fred Returns

Fred Thompson is now writing for Townhall.com:

"Spending some time on the campaign trail has confirmed a couple of thoughts I’ve had before I entered the Republican primary race.

First, conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism.

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law."

Now It's Officially Over

Hoist the white flag a little bit higher - Fred Thompson has endorsed John McCain.

I know this kind of thing is to be expected for the "sake of party unity" but it doesn't make it any more palatable.

Fred - We Hardly Knew Ye

Andrew Ferguson at The Weekly Standard had a great article about Fred Thompson's ill-fated run for the White House:

"In his recent memoir, Alan Greenspan says he's been pushing a constitutional amendment of his own devising. It reads: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." If the Greenspan amendment is ever enacted, it will at last clear the field for Fred Thompson, who might then become president. But not until then.

Thompson withdrew from the presidential race last week. He ended his campaign as he had conducted it, with a minimum of fuss and no wasted words. He released a withdrawal statement over the Internet. It was three sentences long, and he hasn't been heard from since. My guess is we'll be missing him dreadfully by spring."

My feelings are why wait until spring?

Viva La Fred!

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has been keeping his finger on the conservative Republican pulse especially when it comes to John McCain. Glenn has also noticed a lot of folks pining for the good, old days when Fred Thompson was still a candidate:

"January 30, 2008

REGARDING MY EARLIER POST, reader Don MacRae emails:

Long time daily reader, first time writer. I have noticed the Fred Thompson comments as well; file under "You Don't Know What You Got 'Til It's Gone". For the record, not only did I donate to his campaign, I went door to door to get signatures so he could be on the ballot here in Ohio and my wife was a state delegate to boot. I have been wondering who to support since Fred dropped out of the race and I am now fairly certain that I am going to vote for Fred anyway. Screw John McCain!

Fred may do surprisingly well, for a guy who's not running . . . .
posted at 09:45 PM by Glenn Reynolds"

I have to say I like the way this MacRae guy thinks!

If You Can't Be Reagan, Be Goldwater

It is with a heavy heart that I remove my Fred Thompson for President banner on the sidebar in acknowledgement of his withdrawal from the race.

Here is the official announcement:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Jim Geraghty at NRO had this to say:

I spoke to one of my Thompson sources.

He's still with his ailing mother. "He's just being a good son."

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.

At one point, I asked this source if the attitude was, 'if you can't be Reagan, be Goldwater,' and the source responded, "exactly."

Tee Shirt Time

The closer Fred's commercials get to his IMAO tee shirt (Kill the terrorists, Protect the borders, Punch the hippies) the better he sounds.

I Have A Dream

Kathryn Jean Lopez posted this e-mail from an NRO reader:

"I have a crazy idea I'd like to float by you.

The two candidates most acceptable to conservatives, Thompson and Romney, are in not so good shape. The three least acceptable, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani, are in relatively good shape. It's entirely possible that the two conservatives will be knocked out early and the eventual nominee will be unacceptable to a large segment of the base.

Fred has chances to win SC; Mitt has chances to win MI. I want both to win and I think there is a way to make it happen.

Two months ago, in a WSJ interview, Mitt opined that the federal government should have a Chief Operating Officer. He himself would be the perfect choice. He "loves data" - he loves working with details.

My crazy idea is that Thompson and Romney join forces now. Thompson would be the President and CEO, Romney would be the COO. Each would play to his strengths. Fred would work on broad principles and policies (many have commented that he has the most complete set of positions on taxes, entitlements, etc.); Mitt would actually run the government on a day-to-day basis. He would tear into the Washington bureaucracy, reorganize it, and fix it - exactly what he wants to do and has done so well before.

I think this ticket might very well sweep the primaries. They could even invite McCain to join them as SecDef. And maybe Giuliani could be Sec of Homeland Security.

If they announced this "merger" they could avoid months of potentially acrimonious campaigning with tens of millions of dollars of expenses. They could get a head start on campaigning against the Democrats instead of against other Republicans. If the team declared they would stop earmarks and other wasteful spending they might put some spine into Congressional Republicans and thus develop a campaign issue for them.

I believe that this ticket is the best possible ticket for Republicans and could be the best ever administration in terms of restructuring and downsizing Washington."

The only problem with this scenario is that the guys with the biggest egos in the room all want the same job. And it makes waaaaay too much sense.

FDT In SC

Recently Colette posted the following comment to a post about Fred Thompson in Iowa:

"You know...I hear he did not do well in his showing....'tis a shame - I actually have a lot of respect for him....hope he can clean up in SC. But I just don't know...."

Well, after his performance in the most recent debate held in South Carolina, it seems Fred has bestirred himself and turned in the finest debate appearance of any candidate in either party to date. He was the hands down winner with the press, the pundits and more importantly, the public. Now he needs to turn it into momentum and a win in South Carolina.

Update: Even The New York Times thinks so too!

Fred Strikes Back

Here is the latest from Fred in Iowa:

"Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson today questioned whether political reporters covering the race for the White House have enough ambition for the job.

“Most of these journalists seem to lack what you might call fire in the belly,” said the former Tennessee senator. “When’s the last time you read an in-depth story about what the presidential hopefuls actually believe, or have accomplished? How often have you seen a reporter place a candidate’s views in the context of the Constitution, the sweep of American history, the intricacies of global geopolitics, economic theory or even basic political philosophy?”

Mr. Thompson said most reporting on the race fits one of three categories:1) Results of the latest opinion poll.2) Embarrassing gaffes and nasty remarks.3) Reaction to one of the above.
“I’m not sure if it’s laziness, lack of ambition, or just apathy,” said Mr. Thompson, “But the American people need to know that the reporters whom they entrust with this solemn responsibility have a burning desire to fulfill the obligations of the Fourth Estate. That means you need to hustle, do your homework, ask tough questions about significant issues, put quotations in context, filter out your own natural bias, and place more value on accuracy than on speed, more on integrity than on your own petty celebrity.”

After making the remarks at a news conference, the candidate, who’s running third or fourth among Republicans in most polls, refused to answer reporters’ questions about his reaction to Mike Huckabee’s attacks on Mitt Romney."

Fred Tells It Like It Is

Peter Robinson has this to say at NRO:

"While the other contenders are frantically saturating the Iowa airwaves with 30- and 60-second attack ads—Romney is guiltiest, if only because he’s richest—Thompson has sat himself down, looked into a camera, and spoken for a quarter of an hour, calmly and straightforwardly making his case. I myself find this impressive—in a way, moving. Thompson seems to have stepped out of the eighteenth century. He trusts voters to think. And if the comments on YouTube are at all representative, plenty of people agree."

Getting The Story Straight

Fred Thompson posted this at RedState yesterday. This is why Fred is my guy (emphasis added):

"Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.

Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.

Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.

In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.

Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story.

It is clear that there are those in the media who will exact a high price for candor and from those whom they consider to be insufficiently ambitious. But it is with increasing amazement that we see that those who are willing to slant or leave out important parts of a story to make their point.

If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine.

As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.

Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.

The transcript is below the fold . . .

Q: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?

A: That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.

In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.

The first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you’ve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radio…and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn’t want to do it.

I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.

When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better from a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…

When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the United States, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy.

So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself. "

Fred's Christmas Commercial

Well, at least one of the candidates got this right. The only word that comes to mind is class.

Support Your Local Gun Store

By Golly, I think Fred is finally getting the hang of campaigning:

"Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson today, upon hearing that rival Ron Paul’s supporters had raised $6 million in 24 hours to commemorate the Boston Tea Party, called on his supporters to match that figure in gun purchases before Christmas to mark George Washington’s victory at the Battle of Trenton."

The Ultimate Daily Fred Thompson Fact

Daily Fred Thompson Fact

"There are already plans for the supercarrier the U.S.S. Fred Thompson. It will carry and launch other aircraft carriers."

Steyn On Thompson

I usually agree with Mark Steyn and often enjoy his wry sense of humor. But in this instance, I wonder if he is putting the cart before the horse. In the grand scheme of things it would seem more important to have great ideas first and then campaign by talking about those ideas. Instead we are treated to a relentless 24 hour news cycle of who said what about whom, who got softball questions, who planted questions, blah, blah, blah ...

I refer you to Newt Gingrich's comment about this early, early campaign season when he pointedly said "This is stupid." After all, are you voting for the candidate with the best ideas or the one that comes off the best in some meaningless YouTube debate?

From NRO:

Fred's sails in the sunset [Mark Steyn]


I wrote about the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates last weekend, and got a lot of mail from Fredheads and others demanding to know why I hadn't mentioned Senator Thompson. The reason is I've no handle on what it is he thinks he's doing. Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play.

And seeing him live in person isn't that easy to do. I get campaign e-mails about New Hampshire appearances by John McCain and Mrs Clinton and lots of others. Mitt's guys clogged up my in-box with so many urgent releases in the hours after last night's debate that it's seriously impacting my ability to order generic Viagra and e-mail my bank details to Nigerian dictators' wives. But nary a word from Fred.

What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?

Daily Fred Thompson Fact

I haven't posted a recent Fred Thompson Fact, so here you are:
"Fred Thompson's plan for the U.N. is to wait for a big conference and then melt down the entire headquarters, uniting leaders from all nations into a nice little paperweight for his desk."