Posted on 06/01/2007 5:50:45 AM PDT by Neville72
With former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson creeping ever closer to a formal announcement that he will run for president, it is worth asking whether he is the genuine small-government conservative that has been missing from the top tier of the Republican field (with all due apologies to Ron Paul). A preliminary look at his record suggests that while he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, he may be much better on most issues than the alternatives.
During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo). While he sponsored or cosponsored legislation over the course of his career that would have resulted in a net increase in federal spending of $3.1 billion, that is the smallest increase among the contenders. (By comparison, John McCain would have increased spending by $36.9 billion). He generally shared McCain’s opposition to pork barrel spending and earmarks, and voted against the 2002 farm bill. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and has generally been solid in support of tax reduction.
He has been a consistent supporter of entitlement reform, voting to means-test Medicare and supporting personal accounts for Social Security.
His record on free trade is solid. In the past he has been supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but has been critical of the current bill, shifting toward a “control the borders first” position. Still, he has not been Tancredo-like in his anti-immigration statements.
On federalism, there may be no better candidate. His Senate record is replete with examples of his being the lone opponent of legislation that he thought undercut federalist principles. He took this position even on legislation that was otherwise supported by conservatives. He opposes federal action to prohibit gay marriage on federalist grounds, although he supports state bans. One blight on this record is his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind.
On the other hand, he supported McCain-Feingold, although he has now backed away from that position, suggesting the law has been overtaken by events. He told John Fund that he was now willing to consider scrapping campaign finance in favor of full disclosure. And his position on civil liberties generally is troubling. He supported the anti-flag burning constitutional amendment and expansion of federal police powers generally. So far he has given no suggestion that he breaks with the Bush administration on important issues like habeas corpus, torture, and surveillance.
On foreign policy he has been a hawk, and supports continuing the war in Iraq. Alas, that seems standard for the GOP these days, but Thompson appears to also take the neoconservative line on Iran, North Korea, and China. It’s hard to be a small-government conservative while favoring widespread military intervention. War is a big-government program.
Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues. Once he gets in the race, Thompson will have to be much more specific about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle.
Fred’s record is not “perfect” but the perfect candidate doesn’t exist. His record IS vastly superior to any of his three Republican opponents who’ll realistically be vying for the nomination.
Thompson/Pawlenty 2008
Reading through their article they never supported this statement. Their list of Thompson's positions and votes is very Reagan-like.
Fred Thompson is solid in both areas.
>>>>> ... the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives...
Giuliani is a liberal, not a cosnervative. Romney is a centrist at best. McCain has the most conservative record of the three. The big three are weak candidates. Thompson would be a solid alternative choice at this point.
This is where the rubber hits the road. I hope social conservatives can deal with a man who supports their core values but send the matter to the states!
Cato likes Fred!
We can either vote for a Republican or vote for Fred.
Fred gets my vote.
The single largest issue that concerns limited government is congressional abuse of the Commerce Clause.
I wonder if they're being ironical. Conservatism is supposed to be about limited government, so the underlined term is oxymoronic.
“We can either vote for a Republican or vote for Fred.”
Fred is a tradional conservative Republican who I will support enthusiastically and campaign for.
The others, Republicans in Name Only and disasters waiting to happen.
Thompson/Watts 2008 :-)
When he finally announces and people examine his record and philosophy, they may find out that he is as good or better than the Gipper.
Can't wait to see him in a debate... bitch slapping McCain and Rooty the same way he bitch slaps McCoy on Law and Order.
Fun!
If you'd like to join the FRedExpress let me know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
Please use the keyword 'fredthompson' to index articles relating to Fred.
Or a big government Republican?
It was underlined because it’s a hyperlink. It points to a CATO page advertising Tanner’s book, “Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.”
From the blurb:
“For conservatives generally and the Republican Party in particular, now is a time of intense soul-searching. For the first time in a dozen years, Republicans have lost control of Congress. As a result, they are being forced to reexamine who they are and what they stand for.”
“It’s about time. After all, more than a decade has passed since President Bill Clinton announced in his State of the Union address that “the era of big gov-ernment is over.” Yet, since then, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, regulates us more, and reaches far more into our daily lives than it did before the Republican Revolution. Behind this alarming trend stands the rise of a new brand of conservatism—one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules F. A. Hayek and Barry Goldwater while embracing Teddy and even Franklin Roosevelt. It has more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.”
“Leviathan on the Right provides an incisive analysis of the roots and core beliefs of big-government conservatism and the major currents that fueled its growth—neoconservatism, the Religious Right, supply-side economics, national greatness conservatism, and Newt Gingrich–style technophilia—and offers a detailed critique of its policies on a wide range of issues.”
“The book contains a clear warning that, unless conservatives return to their small-government roots, the electoral defeat of 2006 is just the beginning...”
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=&pid=1441337
Big government conservatism is like chaste prostitution, it’s an oxymoron.
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.