Posted on 04/25/2007 3:52:33 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Few probably would have paid much attention to a mild little essay by Ponnuru taking Fred Thompson to task for votes on a couple of issues that, as even Ponnuru noted, few if any actual voters care passionately about, such as federal pre-emption of state laws and a federal cap on attorney's fees in state tobacco cases. "But if conservatives mean what they say when they complain about the dangerous rapacity of the trial bar," Ponnuru challenged, "they ought to ask Senator Thompson a few hard questions."
Much to everyone's surprise, Fred Thompson quickly dashed off a response, posted on www.nationalreview.com -- a devastating, substantive, smart, wry and above all personal response. For example, on his opposition to a bill that would federally regulate lawyer's fees in tobacco cases: "Get this: Under the amendment the states would have been required to send the attorneys' bills to the House and Senate Judiciary for approval," riffs Thompson. "As I said on the floor on May 19, 1998, 'I did not come to the Senate to review billing records from lawyers in private lawsuits.'
"For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker ...
"This discussion," Fred Thompson goes on to say, "is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles."
It's one of those small incidents that speak volumes. Can you imagine McCain or Giuliani personally debating a senior editor on National Review's Web site? By tearing down the fourth wall, Fred Thompson announced to conservatives, more eloquently than even his words could, that he really is one of us.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
frederalists ping.
1) He is a thoughtful person who engages his brain before his mouth.
2) He knows that rebutting an argument does not include a personal attack.
3) His mind may be changed by fact, not by “wind of the day”.
4)He has conviction and would not be a candidate thrown up by the Republican party just “Beat the Demo”... That, to me, was the biggest of Kerry’s sins... Not the least by any means, but it was the biggest.
5) He is... A statesman... Something we have not seen in this country since, in my opinion, FDR.
Does this make me a liberal, heck no! I’m a conservative, but statesman, which this country truly needs, have been far and few between in the last 70 years, IMO. And I do not care which side of the isle a statesman comes from; Lieberman or Thompson.
Blast away...
Every time the RNC asks me for money, I tell ‘m “I’m waiting for Fred!” ;-)
Oh, bullcorn. Nobody stol Jack Shiite from you. LOL!
Draft Fred
Tort reform??? THAT is what Fred’s opponents think will galvanize folks against him? How pathetic.
The story is over. Ponnuru had his 15 seconds.
The story only served to signal FDT is going to educate the populace on the philosophy of ‘Federalism’.
Ahem! That’s FRederalism. :D
Reagan was a conservative, but was tempered by pragmatism. We got Sandra O'Connor on the Supreme Court and a hasty withdrawal from Lebanon because the Great Communicator saw that a more conservative, tougher stand on such issues would be politically untenable. To his credit, President Bush has stuck to his guns on the Iraq war, to the detriment of his approval ratings. (Unfortunately, his limited war and nation building strategies are wrong.)
If Thompson and his appointees are tough enough to clean house in the liberal agencies and effective enough in communication skills, he will be a President even greater than Reagan had been.
Wow....Fred steals my 1A rights and Fred supporters use the tired tactic of denial to make it go away.
Clinton lives....
Well, if it is true that would be wonderful. I suppose there can be prophets in the present day as there were in the past.
Fred said:
For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker ...
The state attorney generals, and the state governments which are explicitly tasked with overseeing their actions are competent to negotiate attorney fees with a private attorney. If oversight is needed to prevent campaign contributions to the state attorney general from interfering with him performing his duties, that it the province and the responsibility of the state.
Fred points out that the states are capable of dealing with this problem on their own.
Ramesh reiterates that oversight is needed and that the Federal Government, in it's vast wisdom, must step in and look after the interests of the states because they are apparently incompetent to do so.
Senator Thompson questions my “commitment” to federalist principle. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have different understandings of what federalist principles, and their implications, are.
I believe that the Founders’ design requires the federal government to keep states from interfering with interstate commerce.
So state attorney generals getting together and negotiating attorney fees for a lawsuit in which multiple states are a party is interfering in interstate commerce? That is a heck of a stretch.
So if I decide to share in the cost of flowers for my mother on mothers day with my brother that lives in a different state, does that mean that the federal government should have to approve the price florists can charge for flowers on mother's day?
I think my brother and I are quite capable of working out that issue with a florist without the help of the federal government.
I think that the states are quite capable of working out the issue of attorney's fees. Their failure to negotiate what I would consider reasonable fees, and the failure of the state government's to reign in those fees does not mean that they were not capable of doing so. The residents of those states elected their government to represent their interests. The federal government should not interfere.
While the state governments may not do a good job representing the interests of their citizens, I have little faith that the federal government will do better. If the citizens don't like how their state government is handling such issues, the citizens can vote in different representatives.
Fred should be questioning Ramesh's commitment to federalism. It doesn't appear that Ramesh has any commitment to federalism and tries to redefine it as an all knowing federal government preventing the states from screwing up.
I only remember reading a few articles by Ramesh, and in none of them did he impress me as being politically conservative.
FDT is using the Internet to get his message out as quickly as he can type it. His responses are direct and to the point. No BSing around, and the MSM is picking up on that too.
Look for FDT to use the Internet as one of his best campaign tools.
There's no shortage of those who claim to be prophets, that's for sure.
I hope you're not suggesting that anything that is taught in an Pentecostal church is not Biblical. I was raised in one of those churches, and I believe their beliefs are a lot closer to original intent than is preached in some of the other churches that the "Cafeteria Christians" attend.
I've toned down a little in my old age and now attend a Fundamentalist Baptist Church (the preacher doesn't wave his hands and shout quite as much).
Baloney.
Just to pick on the “cancer” absurdity, Fred had the mildest form of Non-Hodgens Lymphoma.
It was caught at Stage 1a and aggressively treated. He has been in remission for 3 years.
The typical prognosis for people who discover and treat this form of NHL at State 1a is “no symptoms and no decrease in expected lifespan.”
Sen. Thompson’s oncologist opined that Fred was a typical prognosis and would have no ill effects.
He similarly admitted M/F was a disaster and a mistake.
His record on ILLEGAL immigration is excellent. Stupid “ratings” ding Thompson because he favors things like H1-B visas for engineers, doctors, and other highly trained and skilled people that add a lot of money to our country.
Me, I see nothing wrong with brain-draining the rest of the world. Makes the USA stronger than it should be, given our dismal education system.
Nah, I agreed with everything you said, at least until you got to Joe Lieberman.
He has two at-will contracts. They will be free air time, as long as they fall into the categories exempted from the equal time rule. Fred is very shrewd. He is going to leverage the media for everything he can get.
Nam Vet
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.