"I so hope he runs."

When I waxed enthusiastically about a possible Fred Thompson candidacy in a previous post, a commenter threw a little cold water on my enthusiasm:

Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold. That disqualifies him from upholding and defending the Constitution.

He'll get no vote from me.

The commenter is not alone.

Asked about McCain-Feingold by the WSJ's John Fund, Thompson seems to be having second thoughts:

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

Mr. Thompson has also been criticized for failing to back some comprehensive tort-reform bills because of his background as a trial lawyer. Here he insists his stance was based on grounds of federalism. "I'm consistent. I address Federalist Society meetings," he says, noting that more issues should be left to the states. For example, he cast the lonely "nay" in 99-1 votes against a national 0.8% blood alcohol level for drivers, a federal law banning guns in schools, and a measure limiting the tort liability of Good Samaritans. "Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about." Think Katrina and Walter Reed.

Indeed, the federal government's inability to function effectively would likely be a major theme of any Thompson campaign. "Audits have shown we've lost control of the waste and mismanagement in our most important agencies. It's getting so bad it's affecting our national security."

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

I have to say, I like the fact that Thompson was a lone Federalist "nay" in a sea of 99 Big Government "ayes."

Of course, I realize not everyone likes Fred Thompson, and I was especially crushed to read what James Wolcott said about him:

God what a grumpy old dog farting on the front porch he was yesterday, parked across the table from Chris Wallace. I so hope he runs. He has all the sparkle, verve, charisma, and inspirational lift of Lawrence Eagleburger acting as if it's some great imposition on him to discuss foreign policy and explain subtleties to idiots. Despite being a two-time Senator, Thompson acts as if he didn't cotton the way they do things in Washington and shouldn't be confused with the rest of those deal-cutting politicians.
Well, if he's the lone Federalist vote, maybe he shouldn't be confused with the rest of them.

Besides, anyone who can draw Wolcott's venom before even making a formal announcement looks pretty good to me.

As to "I so hope he runs," well, I say ditto to that! I find it genuinely refreshing to be able to agree with James Wolcott for once.

I simply won't touch Wolcott's "grumpy old dog" analogy, though, as I think canine comparisons should be scrupulously avoided -- especially in this race.

I mean, what if I said the female version of "grumpy old dog" was "grumpy old bitch"?

That might be misunderstood.

MORE: Pajamas Media has exclusive from Fred Thompson about the movie "300." Excerpt:

Who are these guys who are getting all flushed over our cultural insensitivity?

People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979 and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Iran's Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except Al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. They're clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people - like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.

I must say that I'm impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

Again, I so hope he runs!

posted by Eric on 03.18.07 at 01:55 PM


I mean, what if I said the female version of "grumpy old dog" was "grumpy old bitch"? That might be misunderstood.

That's the funniest closing sentence I've read for a long time. Although, I'm not sure even space aliens would misunderstand who the "grumpy old bitch" was.

mtlibertyproject   ·  March 18, 2007 9:42 PM

I'm glad you thought it was funny. Had you thought it was hilarious, I might have been worried.


Eric Scheie   ·  March 18, 2007 10:04 PM

There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation

What a dissapointing statement. If someone who gives nothing to a politician is expected to voice his opinion on legislative actions why shouldn't someone who gives money? The problem is a politician who leads a doner to believe there could be quid pro quo instead of consideration of the opinion on its merits. I would give money to a new Reagan, not to influence hisactions once in office, but because I support what he says he would do if elected. Anyone who volunteers for a campaign, or lends support through an association or union, or has influence by virtue of their profession or access to the public has a right to ask their representatives to support specific legislation; so should large doners.

Doug_S   ·  March 19, 2007 9:31 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits