Replies

This is such inside baseball. McCain Feingold was and is bad law. It does abridge free speech and FDT concedes that it has not worked. That said, the main people who are angry about it are: a) inside the beltway; and b) employed by advocacy groups whether of the left or right and thus have a financial interest and personal pecuniary ax to grind in opposing it.

Most people do not care much about it. FDT concedes that it was a mistake, but he saw politics awash in money and was trying to do something about it. End of story.

As far as the ratings, these things are compiled by groups like the ACU and the ACLU that have agendas too and ways of ranking votes. For example, FDT’s vote against some forms of Federal tort reform would be characterized as liberal by the Chamber of Commerce and probably the ACU. It is instead a principled conservative vote based on the idea that the states are best positioned to enact their own tort reform, both legislatively and through the selection of conservative state Supreme Courts. (I have heard Fred on this point and he is both eloquent on it and quite correct).

The bottom line, if you are looking for a conservative is not to cherry pick one or two votes a legislator has cast, but to look for a salient philosophy. FDT is: 1) the strongest federalist at least since Reagan, and perhaps more committed to federalism than the Gipper; and 2) Very much in favor of slashing the power and spending of the federal government. He is committed to overturning Roe, so he passes this litmus test of most of us in the GOP. In short, what is not to like about the man?

FDT concedes that it was a mistake, but he saw politics awash in money and was trying to do something about it. End of story.

So, bad law is better than no law?

I suppose it depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have problems with a politician writing a law (Thompson chaired the committee that wrote CFR) and not understanding or perceiving the Constitutional infringements such a law might impose.

I saw this with Clinton's Telecommunications bill. They knew parts were unconstitutional, but they passed it anyway because they figured the Supreme Court would take care of that.

I saw this with McCain's Campaign Finance Reform bill. They knew parts were unconstitutional, but they passed it anyway because they figured the Supreme Court would take care of that.

That bothers me when Congresss intentionally passes bills they know contain unconstitutional elements.

If FThompson couldn't perceive these unconstitutional elements when he was involved in writing CFR, I have concerns about his perceptibility now. Presidents usually don't have the luxury of do overs with their presidential decisions.

"....a) inside the beltway; and b) employed by advocacy groups whether of the left or right and thus have a financial interest and personal pecuniary ax to grind in opposing it."

Funny. I fit neither of those categories and a ADAMANTLY opposed to "CFR"--which is a massive and unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech.

McCain should be SHOT for making it happen, and Bush should be impeached for signing the damned thing. Feingold is a "progressive", and you expect unconstitutional legislation from THEM.

If Fred Thompson’s principled position in voting against tort reform is that he believes individual states should generate their own tort reforms, he’s either in bed with the trial lawyers or incompetent.

Lawyers have gone jurisdiction shopping for decade upon decade. “You can’t sue them in 49 states? Why, there’s always South Carolina!”

Tort reform absolutely has to occur on a national level for it to be effective. Individual states can make regulations tougher than federal restrictions, but until we have control at the federal level, we’re going to continue to see these ridiculous lawsuits.

Thompson has made several boneheaded stands/votes based on federalism. His Pro-Choice stance in 1994 was based on federalism/libertarianism.

What’s not to like about Thompson? I don’t think he’s invested the energy in this campaign that anyone looking to become the Ruler of the0 Free World should. I think he’s very vulnerable to comparisons with George Bush. I think he’s haggard and thus vulnerable to a younger, more vital DNC group of candidates. I’ve also been very unimpressed with him in several interviews. I’m not particularly impressed with his business credentials, either.

That said, I like Thompson’s folksy mannerisms, his frank way of dealing with adversity, his generally conservative record, and his promises to cut spending. He does manage to garner up a great deal of support and inspire the base (or at least some of it). I like the guy. I just don’t like him as chief executive.

“In short, what is not to like about the man?”

He isn’t perfect but he’s great and he’s the ONLY shot we’ve got!!

But you must understand - a lot of FReepers drank the Hunter kool-aid early on - and are scared that FDT might be a *gasp* free-trader and we can’t have that!!!!!