Fred Thompson - True Conservative

Voters say they want a substantial debate of the issues and the candidate's proposed solutions. Yet, the minute a serious discussion commences, eyes glaze over and the subject is changed. Many people apply about as much thought to their vote for President as they do to selecting their favorite breakfast cereal. Fred Thompson, despite the fact that he is an accomplished actor, and could simply try to parlay that fact into a successful campaign in this star-struck culture, trusts the average American to engage his or her brain in tackling the issues facing our country.

When Fred's frank, intelligent, common-sense approach is allowed to actually filter down to the people, a level of respect is instantly earned and a bond is formed. Unfortunately, the media believes that candidates should come kowtowing to them for the mere privilege of having access to the airwaves and print media. If a candidate does not "play ball" as they desire it, and as Fred has apparently not done, the media exacts a measure of revenge; in this case, the emergence of stories that questioned his voracity and his desire to engage in the campaign process. Contrary to some people's belief, the media does not operate in public service, but in their own interest. They much prefer a juicy scandal, a lively argument over dirty tactics, or a good mud-slinging contest to a serious discussion of the issues. The debates of 2007 proved that point as they were nothing short of nonsensical - demeaning to the average voter's intelligence and lowering the overall seriousness of the conversation necessary to ensure selection of a qualified leader of the free world.

Here in the opening days of 2008, the real campaign has been engaged. With a strategy built simply on professing his long-held principles, and explaining how they would be applied to today's issues, Fred Thompson is attempting to reunite the winning, conservative Reagan super-coalition that won in 1980 and steam-rolled to victory in 1984. He is the only candidate currently capable of accomplishing this feat, because his opponents all fall short of true conservatism in one way or another:

Mike Huckabee: As an ordained Baptist minister, he is a smooth talker and is perceived to have solid conservative principles on the social side of the equation, despite the fact that some of his decisions as Governor of Arkansas were quite nuanced, especially on the subject of immigration policy. On the fiscal side of the ledger; however, numerous questions have been raised by his support of large tax increases, expansion of government spending and recently, populist rhetoric criticizing corporations. Questions of ethics have also been raised regarding his conduct in office with regard to campaign cash and mismanagement of a non-profit organization. He has a bold tax plan to shift to a consumption (i.e., sales) tax and abolish the IRS. In the Iowa caucuses, strong support from Evangelical Christians was credited with propelling him to victory.

Mitt Romney: Best known as a successful businessman and savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts later that year. From a social perspective, his biggest liabilities are the fact that he previously supported pro-choice positions, gay rights and a civil union compromise brought about by a liberal court decision, and actively supports gun-control legislation. His fiscal views are also considered a rather mixed bag because, although he led a fiscal turnaround in Massachusetts, it was accomplished with substantial tax and fee increases as well as cuts in spending. He also enacted a health care plan which mandated universal health insurance coverage, provided state subsidies and received support from Ted Kennedy. A relatively (compared to the amount of time and money spent) weak second place finish in Iowa raised more questions.

John McCain: A fourth-term Senator from Arizona, former Naval aviator, Vietnam POW and 2000 Presidential candidate, he is a fairly-known quantity. The fact that he has a history of being a "maverick" legislator is not really an asset in a partisan primary fight. His co-authoring of the McCain-Feingold Act is emblematic of his willingness to put bi-partisanship and political compromise ahead of strict conservative principles. Socially, he is staunchly pro-life, but supports embryonic stem cell research, takes a state's-rights approach to gay marriage, supports capital punishment, and private school vouchers, yet his current stances on immigration, the environment and gun control run counter to generally-held conservative views. Fiscally, he is a traditional conservative who has actively fought against pork-barrel spending and supports free-trade, social security reform and opposes socialized health care; however, he opposed Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Rudolph Guiliani: A former Federal prosecutor and Mayor of New York City, he gained international attention due to his adept handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and is truly an enigma in this race. His eight years as Mayor were marked by a reduction in crime and a remarkable turn-around in quality of life. After starting his adult life as a Democrat, he switched to Independent and did not become a Republican until after Reagan's election in 1980. He has supported extensive gun-control measures, but has couched that position by insisting it is a selectively "urban" viewpoint. Socially, he advocated for private school vouchers and welfare reform, yet embraced illegal immigration, granted domestic-partnership benefits to gay city employees and a proposal to expand enrollment in public health care entitlement programs. He has also been consistently pro-choice in regard to abortion and supports capital punishment only in certain situations. In 2000, while considering a run for the Senate against Hillary Clinton, a bout with prostate cancer, combined with a highly-publicized report of an extra-marital affair resulting in separation from his second wife, caused him to drop out of the race. From a fiscal sense, he also has a mixed record: although he did cut taxes several times, he also fought against several tax cut proposals, opposed a Republican candidate for governor, and has seemed to adjust his view based on political expediency.

Fred Thompson's political views are firmly rooted in his conservative "core principles". During a recent interview, this fact completely baffled PBS's Charlie Rose when he posed a question as to what being a conservative means today. Fred answered, "It means things that are consistent with God's design for man, it's consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understood that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing." The liberal Mr. Rose was confused because he hadn't mentioned abortion, or gay rights, or any of the things that have been part of recent elections. Fred replied, "Well you are talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive FROM principles." Charlie, more confused, then asked what he meant by principles. Fred explained, "Principles are what guide you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The Founders talked about, you know, life, liberty and the importance of that. And that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and you know for example I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues you know for 8 years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion related activities and things of that nature you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no properly." This exchange was emblematic of the thoughtful depth of this man. He has defined a list of "First Principles" as: Individual Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Free Markets, Limited Government, Federalism, Protecting our Country, Traditional American Values, The Rule of Law and Conserving our Nations Resources.

Fred Thompson's positions on the issues:

Supports a strong national defense including a larger, more capable and modern military, an enhanced intelligence community with robust human-intelligence capabilities, and an aggressive approach to the terrorist threats facing us - because the most important job of the Federal government is to protect the nation.

Insists on a reasoned and serious approach to addressing the looming fiscal crisis in Federal spending, especially comprehensive reform of Social Security before the problem is again passed on to the next generation. Also believes that solutions should involve market-based products, cuts in wasteful spending, without raising taxes, and encouragement of personal responsibility.

Wants to fundamentally reform the tax code to make rates "flatter and fairer" and encourage savings and investment. He called Huckabee's tax plan (to change from income-based to consumption-based) tantalizing but unrealistic - because, to properly achieve this massive shift, one should to start with repeal of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution lest the people be subject to both at the whim of future legislators.

Supports change in the current health care system to enhance competition and consumer choices, to promote prevention and personal responsibility, to modernize administration and delivery of care, and to promote and speed research and innovation.

Would improve governmental effectiveness by finding ways to attract and retain the best Americans to serve in government, by increasing transparency in how all money is spent and by ensuring accountability and achievement of intended results.

Supports building strong families around the principles of sanctity of life and the institution of traditional marriage and would support parents in protecting their children from the coarseness of the modern culture.

Would enact a strong immigration policy through enhanced border security and enforcement of existing laws. Opposes amnesty in any form and insists on ending toleration of "sanctuary cities." Further supports a policy that welcomes and even promotes legal immigration to those who are willing to assimilate into our culture.

Would review the Federal role in education and would reduce mandates and funding as well as promote more parental choice and less school bureaucracy. Would encourage additional participation in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, by both students and teachers, to improve America's standing in the global marketplace.

Would appoint strict constructionist judges who recognize their role as interpreting the law, not imposing their personal views from the bench.

Supports a balanced approach to energy policy that increases domestic production, encourages conservation, promotes development of alternative fuels and expands research and development of technologies that ensure a clean environment.

Strongly supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and believes that the answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement, not gun control.

These positions on the issues of our day show that Fred Thompson is solid in all three aspects of the conservative movement, as embraced by Ronald Reagan. From a foreign-policy perspective, he advocates for a strong military and national defense. From the social perspective, there are market-based approaches to solving problems with health care and education, strong pro-life and pro-family positions, no-nonsense approaches to crime and immigration and support for a strict-constructionist judiciary. From the fiscal perspective, he firmly opposes raising taxes, advocates a "flatter" tax and would improve government effectiveness and reduce wasteful spending. In short, Fred Thompson in a purely philosophical sense is the one candidate that comes closest to capturing the Reagan ideal that now seems to be the "gold standard" for Republicans. I urge my fellow Americans to take another look, listen to what he says, and join me in supporting this exceptional man who wishes to be our next President.