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: "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!