Okay, So It's Over...

As everyone must know by now, Fred Thompson announced on the 22nd that he has abandoned his campaign for President after his not-so-great showing in the South Carolina primary.

This is disappointing to me, of course. Some might interpret it to mean that the 'conventional wisdom' of the DBM and the 'conservative' pundits in the Beltway was right all along...Fred didn't really have his heart completely in it. One friend has suggested that Fred expected it to be a cakewalk, and when it didn't turn out to be such he picked up his marbles and went home.

I respectfully disagree with such speculation; I just can't believe he would've thrown into the race if he wasn't all in. My guess is that his very vocal and enthusiastic supporters (and money donors) who persuaded him to run turned out not to be nearly enough...and/or not numerous enough where they needed to be. The early primary process is a joke, putting it charitably, considering the momentum effect it has. I wish Fred had stayed in until at least Super Tuesday, but he evidently concluded that it was pointless-largely because of the campaign bank account, I would imagine. With thanks to my friend Sledge the Hoosier for reminding me, it's quite possible that Fred's elderly, ailing mother might well have factored into his decision. I'm not saying that that's the case or trying to make excuses, but it's certainly a possibility.

Obviously, we'll never know, but I'm certainly grateful that Fred refrained from endorsing any of the remaining candidates.

I see no point in doing a full autopsy on the campaign, though; I'd rather salvage some usable organs from it. In that spirit, in days to come I'll continue with the series on Fred's white papers. Hopefully, the best candidate still standing-Mitt Romney, as far as I'm concerned-will adopt the bulk of Fred's policy proposals. It wouldn't surprise me if Huckabee tried to co-opt them first.

Fred: "Traditional American Values"

This one is pretty short and sweet, so the whole thing is here. There are a few things I feel deserving of comment; I will highlight and enumerate them, then comment below.

Protecting Life
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. (1) He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan's Mexico City policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, (2) he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.

Supporting Marriage
Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society. As such, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Senate. (3) He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.

Protecting our Kids
While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.

Limiting the Role of the Judiciary
For many years, the judiciary has been too eager to engage in social engineering under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who understands the difference between interpreting the law and making it. He is committed to appointing judges who understand and respect that difference and who will only interpret and apply the law, not make it. When President Bush needed someone to shepherd the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, he turned to Fred Thompson, who steered the Roberts nomination to its successful confirmation. John Roberts represents the kind of judges Fred Thompson would seek to appoint as President.

(1) He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned.


This is the federalist/states'-rights position. Roe v. Wade was a decision which was based upon nothing that is to be found in the Constitution. Fred is morally opposed to institutionalized abortion-and his rhetoric and record reflect that-as are a good many Americans...some of whom may not realize that a President can do very little (if anything) regarding the issue beyond the appointment of Supreme Court justices. And any impact such appointments might have could manifest beyond a President's term of office.

At any rate, should the Supreme Court overturn that bad decision, what happens?

Does abortion immediately become illegal? No.

Do the state laws in effect at the time of the decision resume? No. (And for those who don't know it, there never was a federal law prohibiting the procedure.) The issue would return to the states, their legislators, and the residents of the respective states to decide.

Fred has declined to endorse a proposed amendment to ban abortion on that basis-states' rights. Never mind that it has no realistic chance of getting through Congress (2/3 in each chamber) and ratified by at least 38 states, and never mind that a President has no part in the amendment process under the Constitution. Endorsing a dead-end amendment would be pretty stupid anyhow.

(2) ...he opposes embryonic stem cell research.

Again, this is a moral objection to such research-and taxpayer funding of same. A President cannot ban it outright on his own, and it'd be a trick to get a Congress which send him a bill which would do so.

(3) He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.

And here again, states' rights. It's not a question for the federal government to decide-either way. Neither bar it or explicitly allow it-but...an amendment making it clear that, under federal law, same-sex marriage will not be recognized, while the states are free to decide the issue for themselves...makes sense to me, anyway. It puts the question out of the reach of the federal judiciary and leaves it up to the states.

Finally, no amendment outright prohibiting same-sex marriage nationwide would pass Congress, much less be ratified by the states. And again, a President can do no more than endorse an amendment-or not. Somehow I doubt Truman supported term limits, even if it didn't affect him.

I'm not a spokesman for Fred or his campaign-I want to make that clear-but I believe I've refined somewhat the federalist/conservative positions he's taken.

Fred: "Revitalizing America's Armed Forces"

It ain't over-not at all. I'm with Fred for as long as he's in it, which I expect to be until at least Super Tuesday. There's been some dissing of South Carolina voters on account of the outcome, but I'm not going there; Fred displayed his class, thanking and encouraging his supporters, in this video, and that's good enough for me.

At any rate, McCain's chances elsewhere in the south aren't exactly favorable (except possibly in Florida, which really isn't 'south'), but he did manage to deprive the other non-conservative, Huckabee, from another gold medal in his own territory. The case could be made that he-or both-deprived Fred of the sort of showing he needed to eventually prevail. Well, maybe, but there are 44 states to go yet. Yes, he's an underdog. What a surprise, eh, considering how Fred's largely been frozen out by the DBM-and how bout those bogus polls? That's certainly not all of it, but it's hardly insignificant to how things have played out to date-consider the nature of the IA, NH, and MI contests, speaking of bogus. I find the nominating process annoying and ridiculous-but there's no point in bitterness. Determination and keeping faith that, even if it doesn't work out for Fred, it won't a non-conservative like McCain or Huckabee who wins the nomination-I'll focus on that.

In that spirit, I will continue this series on Fred's 'white papers' with the related follow-up, noted in the post title:

The threats to the United States today are more complex, dispersed, and opportunistic than ever before. Terrorists and terror states observe no rules and have no restraints of conscience. The enemy understands only the language of power. While the central front in the war against Islamic extremism is in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is clear that our enemies extend far beyond those borders. The gravest danger is terrorists or terrorist states acquiring weapons of mass destruction. But other, more traditional, more conventional challenges await us as well. To overcome these dangers, we need a clear and consistent strategy to address them, and the means to be successful.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, many falsely assumed that unquestioned American military superiority was unneeded. Indeed, many Democrats saw the 1990s as an opportunity to take a holiday from history, and as a consequence, our government began one of the largest unilateral reductions of military power in history. Our Armed Forces were cut 30 percent on average. Army combat power was reduced by nearly half, the Air Force down-sized considerably, and the Navy could not maintain 300 ships, much less the 600-ship Navy that President Reagan once envisioned. We are still feeling the effect of these reductions today.

No one will ever doubt the quality of those who serve our nation in the Armed Forces. The brave men and women who comprise our military have answered every call to duty and defended our freedom with honor. During my days in the Senate, I had the privilege to spend time with them as I traveled abroad to meet with world leaders, visit global hotspots, and gain a better understanding of events on the ground in far-away places. Whether at an outpost in Kosovo with U.S. Army troops; watching flight operations with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aboard an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean; meeting at a darkened Afghan airfield with special operations forces shortly after 9/11; or flying aboard a cargo aircraft with the U.S. Air Force in South America and South Asia. I am always inspired by the courage, competence, and commitment of our men and women in uniform.

But we are fighting a war in two theaters today, against an enemy not bound by borders, using 20th century equipment in a 21st century war. And our material support for our troops has not matched the demands we have placed on them. Their readiness and capabilities could soon be in doubt. We simply have been asking too few troops to do too much for too long.

The rest is definitely worth a read; it's clearly very well thought out. I keep firmly in mind the fact that without our country we would have no freedom, and without security, at some point we'll have no country. I think that's well worth keeping in mind.

Fred: "Taking Care of our Veterans and Military Personnel"

During my inactive period, I signed on at a website called Vets4Fred, and I find it appropriate to point to it here and now, as I note Fred Thompson's 'white paper' on the troops, veterans, and national security issues. South Carolina has a significant population of military members, and likely a considerable number of retirees and veterans as well, and that state holds its primary vote today.

One thing I believe is overlooked by some folks when it comes to electoral politics is the dynamic of troops support-especially in garrison (as opposed to the field)-in that the armed forces have become increasingly dependent upon Civil Service employees. By design. (And contract firms, to a lesser degree, but that's probably much more prevalent overseas-certainly in theaters of combat). My point is that civilian employees-regardless of their philosophical bent in the political sense-face something of a dilemma, both today and in November, because their livelihoods may hang in the balance. Do they vote for a Democrat, any of whom is almost certain to gut the military? Do they vote for a GOP candidate whose campaign rhetoric suggests little or nothing about their priorities, and who may in four years deserve an accusation of benign neglect?

Or...do they instead vote for the candidate who's committed to this:

As President, I would take the following actions to revitalize our Armed Forces and care for our veterans.

• Devote as much as 4.5 percent of our nation's GDP to revitalize and modernize our military after the neglect of the 1990s. Increased defense spending will also ensure our military personnel, their families, and our veterans receive the best pay, benefits, healthcare and support possible.
  
  
• Build a 'million-member' ground force by increasing the Army and the Marine Corps end strength by nearly 250,000. This increase will help our military meet future contingencies, and give our military personnel more time at home between training exercises and overseas tours.
  
  
• Provide concurrent receipt for all of our disabled military retirees so that they can receive the military retired pay they earned and the VA disability compensation they deserve.
  
  
• Ensure that all veterans have the best healthcare available in a timely manner, that their families are fully supported, that bureaucratic red-tape is eliminated, and that Defense Department and Veterans Affairs Department systems and procedures are fully streamlined and integrated
  
  
• Increase the pay and benefits (especially healthcare, education and housing) of our military personnel and their families to enhance recruitment, retention and quality of life.
  
  
• Improve education assistance and financial reimbursement times for service personnel and veterans by modernizing the GI Bill.
  
  
• Reduce the VA claim backlog of our veterans and realign the DOD-VA process for rating disabilities to today's health care requirements.
  
  
• Improve the care of veterans by implementing many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission.

That's the policy meat of it, but the intro and conclusion are well worth following the above link to read-and not overly lengthy at all.

I must say, if I were a young troop contemplating a career in the service-or a Civil Service or NAF employee-I would find Fred to be a helluva lot more attractive as a candidate than the rest on either side of the aisle. With all of the rest, uncertainty at best. Hopefully the South Carolinians I'm referring to will come to that realization as well-along with many others.

I will highlight Fred's other 'white papers' in the days to come...it's heatin' up, folks!

Newt Has Jumped The Shark

Just a sampling of what can be found here:

THE PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

AMERICAN VALUES AND AMERICAN SOLUTIONS

Government should offer intensive English language instruction to all who need it, including stipends to help immigrants attend the programs. (83 to 15) [Paid for by whom, pray tell?]

When applying for a temporary worker visa each worker should take an oath to obey American law and be deported if they commit a crime while in the United States. (93 to 8) [Like much of the rest of the content of this 'platform', this is mostly a 'duh!' plank, but that oath bit? Please!]

The American people want to increase the number of visas for highly-educated immigrants or those with special skills, the so-called H1B and H2B visas. (63 to 29) [Not me, pal-I'd rather see American kids get highly-educated so that they can do those jobs.]

Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10) [Substitute 'aliens' for the part in bold, and you got it.]

There should be heavy monetary fines against employers and businesses who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. (78 to 20) [They're not immigrants, you Newt-wit; they're intruders. As for fines, sure-on top of a mandatory five-year prison sentence.]

We want to encourage businesses to voluntarily cut pollution and give them financial incentives to do this but, if necessary, we will require them to do so. (66 to 25) [Unfunded mandate. So much for the Republican revolution of '94-it's dead.]

Climate change and global warming are probably happening. (82 to 13) [Says your opinion poll. Some respectable climatologists aren't so sure of that-much less that it's anthropogenic or that humankind could do a bloody thing to stop it if so.]

We should hold city governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to private industry. (91 to 5) [To paraphrase Fred: so much for states' rights; so much for federalism.]

We are prepared to use public funds to preserve green space and parks to protect natural areas from development but especially with public and private partnerships. (81 to 15) [Public funds=taxpayer dollars; why not just say it? Let the government take the measures necessary to preserve land it already owns, using a common-sense approach. That goes for land management as well, including woodland.]

Taxpayers should be given the option of a single income tax rate of 17%. Taxpayers would still have the option of filing their taxes in the current system if they choose to do so. (61 to 32) [A 'Fonzi scheme', if you'll pardon the pun...seems cool, but too Italian-and not very bright.]

All emphases mine, as are [these].

Oh, and those numbers in parentheses? Poll numbers. Newt's gone native in the Beltway, and it's a sad thing for me; at one time he was second only to Ronald Reagan as the ideal conservative, despite his personal faults. Sad.

Update (7:05 EST): I just noticed the polling result on that second item (93-8). Wonder if that extra one percent was comprised of dead people, illegal aliens, or both. They sure as hell weren't conservatives.

Conservative Strife

"Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your friend's forehead."
- Chinese Proverb

A friend of mine sent me a message a while back lamenting the sometimes rancorous rhetoric among conservatives in this contentious primary season. I haven't replied yet, as I wanted to give some thought to it first, and I've decided to address those concerns here, because I believe this can be a helpful discussion for conservatives in general. I'll start with this:

The one true conservative in the race is Fred Thompson, but his campaign is struggling. Are we allowed to actually think and analyze WHY he is struggling? - No, that shows some kind of disloyalty. The only acceptable manta is "Fred Thompson for President."

Now do these same Fred Thompson supporters actually campaign for the guy in their home areas? I could be wrong, but I don't think I read of anyone saying that they have.

Have these passionate Fredheads financially contributed to Fred08? I doubt most of them have.

It would help if I could provide some context for this, but to do so would likely be a breach of confidence.

My friend has a point inasmuch as some of us Fredheads tend to get snippy when we hear/read the first part of the first paragraph above followed by but...because it smacks of the mantra of the DBM since nearly day one. Lazy, fire-in-the-belly, tired, lackluster-all BS. To criticize the efforts of the campaign, however, is fair; I think it's safe to say that all of us who truly hope to see Fred win the nomination are disappointed in that regard. (My friend at one point referred to the campaign's failure to make the primary ballot in Delaware, which is a fair criticism.)

I for one expected Fred to hit the ground running once he made it official, but in hindsight that wasn't a realistic expectation. It does take time to put together a national campaign organization, and under FEC rules Fred was strictly limited as to the extent that he could go about that prior to his official announcement. Keep in mind that at the dawn of '07 he had no plan to run for President; he had a TV role and a contract to do radio commentary. I don't know whether or not those two gigs paid better than $400k a year, but they were safe-and they almost certainly paid more than he needed to earn, at age 64, after a long, successful, eclectic career.

But I for one don't think it's 'disloyalty' to point out shortcomings in the campaign strategy of Team Fred. My thinking is, rather, that Fred and his campaign are learning from day to day. Also-for me, at least-my friend's second paragraph makes an even better point. Because of my work schedule and other factors, I myself can do little in terms of donating time to the campaign. As to the third paragraph, now that I'm in a better position to do so I will contribute financially. I would've done so already if it were possible to do a transfer from checking...I don't have a credit card.

So in other words you've got a group of folks that insist that others agree on this monolithic political orthodoxy but really aren't doing much to make it happen. They rather spend time talking to one another and policing others than actually trying to do something practical to make their stated goals a reality.

Things have reached a tipping point with me and this subject. What’s more frustrating to me than Fred's campaign are the nitwits...(who) say that they are supporting his campaign. They are so self-assured of their own "rightness" that they refuse to do any serious analysis themselves and are threatened when someone suggests they do.

Well, I'm more like Rush when it comes to groupthink and convention; I have precious little patience for it. If these guys believe what they say then they would be more serious about it than merely bashing Huckabee and saying to one another "Thompson for President." Thompson is losing and probably will be unsuccessful in his bid. That is the unpleasant reality at this moment. What Fred Thompson needs now are activists, not apologists.

My friend makes some good points here-the first and last sentences of the third paragraph in particular-but makes a few statements based on assumptions about us Fredheads. To this Fredhead, it's quite telling that none of his opponents on the GOP side can credibly criticize Fred on his record as a public servant-except in one instance: voting for McCain-Feingold. Certainly a considerable misjudgment on his part, and I believe he's acknowledged it to be such-rather than running away from it, perhaps doing a Hillary-like 'I voted for it to discourage corporate donations-I didn't mean for it to be enforced!' The DBM has nothing on Fred-no scorned exes, no other non-conservative votes, nothing! So they take his remarks out of context, miscast his record, invent 'stories' (the 'dropping out' rumor by politico) or ignore him outright. Huckabee has nothing-none of them do, except wise-cracks, which Huck seems especially fond of employing when substance fails him. He may well be a decent man-GW Bush is a good man, I believe, but he's wrong in some fundamental ways, and Huck isn't nearly as conservative as the man he hopes to replace.

At any rate...it would be unfair of me to reference facts which have emerged since I first received that message, except to point out that there have now been three states decided. At this point, Romney has 30 delegates, and Fred has 8. 47 states to go yet. Losing? Behind, yes, but hardly losing. To my friend I will say this...it is the untoward negativism that we Fredheads find frustrating, when this contest has barely begun. We have no delusions about the odds of success, either-Fred has an uphill battle here, no question. South Carolina may or may not change that.

What it comes down to is this, at least to me...this is the single most critical election in our history; the future of America as we know it and live it is in the balance come November 4. Fred is the one true conservative in the game, and as such he's the single best choice.

New Year, New Hope

Well! Obviously things haven't panned out as I'd hoped. My intent was to hold off on Fred: Part III as I cogitated on how to proceed, and in the meantime I'd invited a couple of good friends (one of whom is a Gold-Star father) to compose guest-posts. A little topical diversity is a good thing, it seems to me. But things didn't come together as I'd have liked, and life got busy. Working four ten-hour (evening) shifts makes it difficult to get caught up with the day's events and get in the proper frame of mind to write in serious, thoughtful mode. (I also dabble in fiction-writing, which is in the realm of fan-fiction/fantasy/sci-fi.) The weekend almost inevitably ends up being a game of catch-up as well as online interaction with friends. Plus, frankly, I got lazy.

A lot has happened since my last post besides. Thanks to a friend, I'm now able to listen to Rush via 24/7 when I get home-and I wouldn't miss it. Also...I referred to my employment situation in an earlier post, saying that I was hoping to get hired on with the company where I was working as a temp. That finally happened; I started full-time permanent Thanksgiving. A great place to work, good pay (for this area, to be sure), great benefits, great co-workers. Including the gal I was talking about in that earlier post, who was hired on before I was-and in a supervisory job. I've come to think that she's a 'classic' liberal who's been woefully misinformed by the MSM (henceforth, DBM, as in Drive-By Media) that she believes all 'Republicans' are mean-spirited bigots. While I'm not a Republican, if she believes I am-and we're quite friendly now-that may serve to get her wondering about her indoctrination by the schools and DBM. She's not yet 25, I think, so there's hope there.

At any rate! The year closed on a positive note for me, and a lot of the stress and uncertainty I'd been trying to suppress for a year and a half is gone. Some challenges remain, but I've regained my optimism about the future. In all things.

It's just as well that I stood down for a while. Some of my expectations in the Fred posts haven't materialized, obviously, and I'll get into that in the near future. At this point, suffice it to say that I am STILL with Fred-for the distance. I'll refrain from prognostications, however, and stick with what IS. That's coming soon, and there are plenty of other matters to explore as well. Until then...