Thompson Turns to Taxes Presidential Candidate Hopes Tough Talk Lures Conservatives

WSJ ^ | 100807 | AMY SCHATZ

[Fred]

WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson entered the presidential race hoping to be the candidate of choice for conservatives. But he has stumbled in early attempts to woo social conservatives, partly because he doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now, as he seeks to win the Republican nomination for president, he is looking to lure the party's economic conservatives with an aggressive plan to curb government spending.

While all the party's leading candidates have embraced fiscal restraint, the former Tennessee senator seems likely to go further than his rivals. He has hinted at politically risky proposals to rein in Social Security and Medicare benefits. And he appears to be heading toward proposing tax-code changes to help lower corporate tax rates, as well.

But Mr. Thompson may have trouble balancing his pitch to small-government purists with his quest for popular support in the competitive early-voting states. Even as he decried what he described as Washington's dependence on pork-barrel spending last week, he reversed position after touring an Iowa ethanol plant, saying he now supports subsidies for alternative fuel.

"I have voted against subsidies in the Senate," Mr. Thompson told reporters after the tour, according to the Associated Press. "But I think it's a matter now of national security and we've got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture."

So far, Mr. Thompson has painted his vision with a broad brush. He'll get a chance to offer more specifics tomorrow afternoon, when The Wall Street Journal, CNBC and MSNBC co-host a debate of the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues in Dearborn, Mich.

It will be Mr. Thompson's first debate and first major live event before a national audience since joining the race last month. He has been

[trisham]

Well done, 2DV.

[Atlas Sneezed]

he has stumbled in early attempts to woo social conservatives, partly because he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

---

Sticking to your Federalist principles ain’t “stumbling.”

[Finny]

People who post “yawn” are akin to people who have a “Baby On Board” sign on their vehicles: insulting and annoying at the same time with their pointless, useless “input.”

[daylilly]

Yes, he was but it needs to be an ongoing thing.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Even as he decried what he described as Washington's dependence on pork-barrel spending last week, he reversed position after touring an Iowa ethanol plant, saying he now supports subsidies for alternative fuel.

He shouldn't have done that. Now he'll be seen as supporting the ethanol scam.

[Beagle8U]

” Fred has also admitted that his vote for the immigration reform measure which President Reagan signed in 1986 created an additional ...”

Huh? Fred wasn’t in Congress to vote for anything in 1986.

[Politicalmom]

I have never heard any of the other candidates use the term “Islamofascists”. Fred does.

[papasmurf]

Wow, I’m the opposite.

I disagree with him, on some issues (like this subsidy), but I truly believe IN him, in his principles, his integrity.

I’m votin’ FRed!

[papasmurf]

Actually, he was quite successful at it. Put your reading glasses on, and read his positions on the bills that represent his voting record.

[RockinRight]

And why is that?

[papasmurf]

He shouldn't have done that. Now he'll be seen as supporting the ethanol scam.

And a scam, it is.

[Non-Sequitur]

Put your reading glasses on, and read his positions on the bills that represent his voting record

Take your rose-colored glasses off and look at the record. He may have "...pursued an agenda aimed at producing a smaller, more efficient, and more accountable government..." but on his watch government certainly got larger, appears to be less efficient, and is no more accountable than it was before.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Funny, I don’t hear anything from Thompson about eliminating income taxes. Doesn’t sound to me like he even supports a flat tax. More of the same from a beltway insider.

[kellynla]

Much as I like Fred Thompson, he and I are fellow Tennesseans(even though he was actually born in AL) & Memphis State alumnus;
I haven’t heard much substance that would make me want to rush out and vote for him other than the fear of another Clinton in the WH.
As I have repeatedly stated, as far as I am concerned;
we’ve only had one POTUS in my lifetime, RR, who I thought was anything special. And as a Marine, I even had a problem with Reagan's failure to respond to the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut.

[papasmurf]

So, you're in favor of instituting a policy that hasn't been vetted, thoroughly researched, and all simulation models applied to it?

I'd say what FRed has said, which is:
* Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.
* A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.
* Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.

is an acknowledgment of the problem, a commitment to tackle the problem, and further proof of FRed's principles.

To merely "rubber stamp" something that hasn't undergone severe scrutiny is pure negligence and speaks to one's lack of understanding the real problems.

As FRed has said, several times, the "flat tax", or the "fair tax", or a combination of both, may just be the ticket. BUT, they do need more dissecting and thought before endorsing.

[papasmurf]

So, you don’t think RR’s bombing of Qaddafi’s home is a response?

Now, where have I heard that said before???

[Tailgunner Joe]

The fair tax is a combination of both, because it's also a flat tax. The difference is that the flat tax is still an income tax and the fair tax is a sales tax. If he doesn't even support the flat tax, that means he supports the status quo, "progressive" graduated income taxes, one of the ten planks of the communist manifesto.

Maybe Thompson does need to give these issues "more thought." Maybe he should have thought about that before running for President.

[kellynla]

I don’t know where you learned to debate but your “so you do” or “so you don’t” doesn’t hit the mark especially when the person you are addressing NEVER said what follows...

now your “So, you don’t think RR’s bombing of Qaddafi’s home is a response?” which I did not say BECAUSE it was widely known by those of us who were/are in the Marine Corps & documented that IRAN was responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in 1983.

and as for your “Now, where have I heard that said before???”

you probably “heard” it in your sleep

for the record, I take issue with posters who misquote me and/or fabricate.

Class dismissed.

[papasmurf]

OK, I did get my events mixed up, and for that, I apologize.

As for my debating tactics, and the class dismissed remark...up yours.

[papasmurf]

Trust me friend, I understand the fair and flat tax initiatives, I donated thousands to Herman Cain and the fairtax cause.

Regarding your snide remark “Maybe he should have thought about that before running for President.”

Maybe you’ll want to remember he was grassrooted into this, hardly leaves time for exhaustive research and decision actions.

What I very much like about FRed is that he is running on his principles. No phony promises, no trumped up flip charts, no spun into outrageous “I did this” commercials.

You want details, wait until the general, you’ll get ‘em. Until then, you either believe in a man who is willing to give up his lifestyle, privacy, and to a certain degree, his dignity, to answer the call of duty to his Country, or not. No one is trying to twist your arm, it’s you who is giving fodder to lefties that troll here with your outrageous remarks, and slamming other Conservatives.