Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 09/13/2007 7:22:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
SUMMARY: Fred Thompson has been consistent — though not perfect — on issues of federal power over states. But it sometimes comes at the expense of conservative ideals.
WASHINGTON – Fred Thompson is casting himself as the conservative’s choice for president. The question is, whose version of conservatism is it?
In explaining his opposition to certain positions considered sacrosanct to the Republican Party’s conservative base, Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee, describes his views as federalist and calls himself an old-school conservative whose philosophy was once mainstream for the GOP but in recent years has been squeezed out.
“I’ve cast a couple of 99-1 votes. I was the '1' during my career up there,” Thompson told a crowd in Sioux City, Iowa, on Sept. 7, 2007. “My staff went nuts, you know, said this is the ruination of everything. I said, ‘No, no, no, we’ll just put out a little statement and explain this is just Fred being Fred.’”
And it’s true. As a senator from 1994 to 2003, Thompson was the lone dissenter on several popular bills, amendments and resolutions that asserted federal power over traditionally state functions, Senate records show.
In 1997, he was the lone “nay” vote against a bill called the Volunteer Protection Act, which exempted Good Samaritans from being sued. In 2000, he was the only senator who voted against a resolution “encouraging local schools to insist on zero-tolerance policies towards violence and illegal drug use.”
In 2001, he offered the only “nay” on an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that shielded teachers from civil liability.
He also voted against a bill to mandate national drunken-driving standards and opposed a bill to ban guns in school zones.
“I don’t think the federal government ought to be federalizing something that’s been under the state purview for 200 years,” Thompson said to applause in Sioux City. “Give me a good reason why, when the federal government... can’t get its own act together, why it ought to be taking on these other things in order to get a press release and a headline? ... That’s not the right thing to do.”
But he wasn’t perfect.
As a senator, Thompson fell off the federalist wagon in at least one big way: supporting President Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which sets federal standards for local schools. Conservatives also complain about his support for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as McCain-Feingold, though whether this constitutes a breach of federalism is debatable. By capping political contributions and restricting ads by interest groups, conservative activists say McCain-Feingold amounts to censorship, and they note that states have traditionally managed elections.
Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Thompson deserves criticism for those votes, but they weren’t the norm.
“He took a principled approach to federalism,” Pilon said. “Not an approach that reads federalism as federal-state partnerships, but real federalism that tips power against power, as Madison described it, in order to protect individual liberty.”
The intersection of Thompson’s Senate record with his campaign to woo Republican primary voters puts him squarely in the midst of an ideological tug of war within the conservative movement.
His leave-it-to-the-states approach could be attractive to moderate or old-school Republicans disenchanted with the selective conservatism that has come to define Republican politics in Washington. But it also may put him at odds with social conservatives who have come to view power in Washington as a means of addressing moral or social issues nationwide.
This intraparty debate has steadily sharpened since the historic 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Until the Democrats recaptured Congress last fall, President Bush and congressional Republicans had spent the past six years trying to usurp state authority in the name of morality on a variety of issues, from gay marriage to Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law to the medical use of marijuana use in California.
In spring 2005, unhappy with the decisions of Florida’s courts, the Congress and President Bush pushed through Terri’s Law, allowing federal review of the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman from Pinellas County enmeshed in a right-to-die dispute between her husband and her parents. More recently, the Bush administration has refused to grant requests by California, Florida and several other states to institute tougher standards for vehicle pollution.
Pilon, who held several senior posts in the Reagan administration, said the trend began under President George H.W. Bush and has continued under his son.
“The Bush administrations and those Republican congresses have changed the terms of the debate, from limited government to secure individual liberty to – how can I put it? – big-government conservatism – government in service of conservative interests,” he said.
As he campaigns in early primary states like Florida, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Thompson is sure to face more questions from voters, particularly social conservatives, about how his approach to limited government would affect their issues if he wins the White House.
His philosophy generally puts him on the right side of some conservative red-meat issues, such as gun control and state attempts to regulate access to abortion. But on others, not so much.
Should Congress have intervened in the Schiavo case, a high-water mark for the political influence of national evangelical leaders? Thompson believes not, campaign spokesman Jeff Sadosky said. “This sort of decision is for the family to make under Florida law.”
Should Congress again attempt to mandate damage caps and other limits on medical malpractice reform? No, Thompson says. Though a popular conservative cause, he says malpractice suits belong in state courts. If states have a problem with malpractice premiums and doctor shortages, then states should change their own systems, as California has.
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage? No, Thompson says. States have always set their own rules regarding marriage, and should. Instead, he has said recently, Thompson would favor an amendment allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages consecrated in other states.
“It’s a smaller-government, authentically conservative way of addressing an issue that is becoming more of a challenge as activist judges play a larger role in policymaking,” Sadosky, his campaign spokesman, said.
As Thompson tries to make his case, it is worth noting that his top opponents face their own challenges with the conservative GOP base. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who said he also would have opposed congressional intervention in the Schiavo case, has been criticized for changing his views on abortion and gay marriage.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani supports legal abortion, while Arizona Sen. John McCain has clashed with national evangelical leaders. He’s also been criticized for opposing the extension of certain tax cuts while the nation was at war.
As for Thompson, Sadosky said, “Where he stands on issues are not a result of election-year conversions on any issue, and I think voters will recognize that quickly and support the principled leadership that is driving it.”
Well, he didn’t oppose the Feds in everything...:
“Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to “snag” for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of “constitutional pork.” And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton’s veto of two Tennessee projects.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
I would not believe anything the St. Petersburg Times said.
Wow! Another Paulestinian for my first post! It’s like I won some lottery from Hell... Your man isn’t even a republican, more of a Cindy Sheehan anti-American peacecreep. I take any negative comment from a Paulbearer as a compliment...
TVA isn’t only for Tennessee. It serves the power needs of many states. It’s one of the few government programs that are really worth a damn.
And that will resonate with people - they will feel they can trust him to stay the course and even if they don't agree on all points (which would be impossible on any candidate, but which a lot of pubbies get hung up on) most will feel they have, in Fred, someone whose word they can trust.
That's worth it's weight in gold.
maybe, but I just realized how much I miss this kind of reporting. Kudos to the author. The item is factual, informative, provides just the right amount of explanatory background, and I didn't detect any editorializing.
How many years has it been since I read any newspaper article even close to this? Probably about 40 odd years I think.
Ping!!
Nothing like a good slam from a ron paul wussy to remind you you are on the right path.
I would not put HW funds as an ear mark or the TVA either. I saw a history channel program on the TVA and how it made cheap electricty available to many small rural areas that the energy companies did not want to spend the money on for lack of profitablity. As far as the river and the neutron project I can’t honestly say if they are worth while projects or not.
I suggest asking someone from his state if they were boon dogels or worth while projects. The first sign that something is a waste of money is if the senators own name is on it.
Does the word “shrimp” ring a bell?
“Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul’s office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.”
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
“But it also may put him at odds with social conservatives who have come to view power in Washington as a means of addressing moral or social issues nationwide.”
As a “social/moral conservative” I would say that statement is correct. Unfortunately, the courts have been so messed up for so long that many things have to be now handled at the federal level because of court decisions.
IF Roe V Wade could be reversed, and the question left up to states. I would support that move, as long as the federal government made it illegal to cross state lines to have an abortion. Meaning, if in state “A” abortion was legal, but in state “B” it is not, someone from state B cannot go to state “A” to abort a child. This would cause abortion to be trully banned in some states. It would isolate the abortion industry to a few states where it would then wither on the vine. Take away the profit, and abortions would pretty much cease.
In all honesty, I realize this will never work. So, that puts it back on federal law to control things in states. I also freely admit that I don’t have the answers on what the balance should be between states rights and federal law, except what the 10th Ammendment says.....which the courts have pretty much repealed by their rulings.
“But it also may put him at odds with social conservatives who have come to view power in Washington as a means of addressing moral or social issues nationwide.”
As a “social/moral conservative” I would say that statement is correct. Unfortunately, the courts have been so messed up for so long that many things have to be now handled at the federal level because of court decisions.
IF Roe V Wade could be reversed, and the question left up to states. I would support that move, as long as the federal government made it illegal to cross state lines to have an abortion. Meaning, if in state “A” abortion was legal, but in state “B” it is not, someone from state B cannot go to state “A” to abort a child. This would cause abortion to be trully banned in some states. It would isolate the abortion industry to a few states where it would then wither on the vine. Take away the profit, and abortions would pretty much cease.
In all honesty, I realize this will never work. So, that puts it back on federal law to control things in states. I also freely admit that I don’t have the answers on what the balance should be between states rights and federal law, except what the 10th Ammendment says.....which the courts have pretty much repealed by their rulings.
LOLOL....You made my night with tht post.. LOLOL
I’m continuously amazed at how few these days, even among presidential candidates, seem able to distinguish the difference between the sworn oath to protect unalienable rights and the duty to govern from within the bounds of the Enumerated Powers.
What a bunch of confused puppies.
Hey this thread is on Thompson not RP! But, for the record, I’ve never defended RP’s spending, in fact, its one of the few things I’ve disagreed with him on.
I just love shrimp. ;OD
Well, IMO, we are lucky that the new dealers were defeated by what was left of conservatism in congress and prevented from creating these TVA monstrocities across the nation (which was planned at one time).
Here is Ronald Reagan:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html
Some government programs with the passage of time take on a sacrosanct quality.
One such considered above criticism, sacred as motherhood, is TVA. This program started as a flood control project; the Tennessee Valley was periodically ravaged by destructive floods. The Army Engineers set out to solve this problem. They said that it was possible that once in 500 years there could be a total capacity flood that would inundate some 600,000 acres. Well, the engineers fixed that. They made a permanent lake which inundated a million acres. This solved the problem of floods, but the annual interest on the TVA debt is five times as great as the annual flood damage they sought to correct.
Of course, you will point out that TVA gets electric power from the impounded waters, and this is true, but today 85 percent of TVA’s electricity is generated in coal burning steam plants. Now perhaps you’ll charge that I’m overlooking the navigable waterway that was created, providing cheap barge traffic, but the bulk of the freight barged on that waterway is coal being shipped to the TVA steam plants, and the cost of maintaining that channel each year would pay for shipping all of the coal by rail, and there would be money left over.
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.