Reevaluating Fred Thompson

Since I have a couple or three new readers, let me start out by saying welcome to monoblogue. This isn’t a new site, so you pick me up doing something I promised to write last weekend for those who get a weekly e-mail update that I do (if you wish to be added to the list, my e-mail address is in the upper left-hand corner.)

Back in May I attended the Maryland state GOP convention. Yes, we have a few Republicans here despite Governor Martin O’Malley’s bid to tax us out of existence. Anyway, at the convention it was encouraged that we figure out which candidate to throw our support behind and do so relatively early. And since I’m one that really HATES campaigns based on thirty-second commercials and writes a website dedicated in part to informing voters, I decided to make a public show and series of posts on how I arrived at my decision. In turn, the issues I base my decision on come from what I call my “50 year plan”, in which I make suggestions to the future leaders of America on policies they should follow and attempt to base my ideas on our founding principles.

So the original series of posts is here, and if you go to the start of the 50 year plan topic to the left you’ll see where I stand on them.

Now, to Fred Thompson. I originally included him in my evaluation but could only base it on the little I knew at the time in July and August. Now that he’s a full-fledged candidate this gives me an opportunity to finish this job. Each of my topics was assigned a point scale that increased with greater importance, so I’ll go through what I know about Fred from his website. However, feel free to add items if you think I’m incorrectly interpreting something said…I’ve added points when people have pointed out items I didn’t see.

Unfortunately, Fred doesn’t go into eniment domain or property rights (as in the Kelo decision) in any meaningful way, so I can’t give him any points there. Not many candidates did, so his zero points of 5 don’t put him far down the list.

On the Second Amendment, here’s what Fred has to say:

I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

• Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
• Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

In comparison to the rest of the field, Fred is better than average – but I wish he’d talk as much about repealing some of the more egregious federal laws as he does about strict enforcement. I’d rerank him about where I ranked John McCain, who got 5.5 out of 7 points in my previous Second Amendment post. So Fred has 5.5 points and would move up to tie McCain for third. Since I’d previously talked about Fred, he jumped 3.5 points from my original ranking.

Unfortunately, Fred still doesn’t go into election or campaign finance reform so he remains with no points of the nine I gave on that topic. And on trade and job creation, aside from a call to “open markets abroad to American goods” he doesn’t go into nearly the specifics that other candidates like Duncan Hunter have on their individual websites. However, having used the Club for Growth as a guide to many of the other candidates, I’ll defer to their generally positive evaluation of Senator Thompson’s record and award him points accordingly. Sam Brownback had top marks among the candidates on my original post, and I think Thompson deserves the same 7 points of 11. He now has 12.5 points overall and would rank second at that point.

Education also ranked as an important issue with me. Fred has generally agreeable things on his mind for what to do with the federal government and education:

A well-educated citizenry is vital to our security, our economy, and our democracy. Despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on education by Washington each year, and the hundreds of federal education programs now in place, our children are still falling behind, particularly in subjects crucial to the global economy in which we live. At a time when America is behind other developed countries in education excellence, the federal role in education is too intrusive and too bureaucratic, and has become part of the problem. State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools, and best situated to implement changes and innovations that best educate children. I am committed to:

• Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy.
• Reviewing federal programs for cost-effectiveness, reducing federal mandates, returning education money to the states, and empowering parents by promoting voucher programs, charter schools, and other innovations that enhance education excellence through competition and choice.
• Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity.
• Promoting transparency to assess performance, promote accountability, and share innovations in education at all levels.

There’s only two quibbles I have with this set of ideas. One is asking the question of how he would encourage the students and teachers to pursue particular careers and the other regards transparency. Keeping something valuable behind glass is less useful than taking it away altogether. Let the states be laboratories as you stress in the opening paragraph. And how about money following the child? What Thompson says is good, but a couple others say better things in my view. I’ll award him 8 of 13 points, which leaves him with 20.5 points but puts him in the overall lead!

Only John McCain among Republicans talked about my next subject, which touched on veterans affairs. More or less it became a look of the role of the VA since I decided to defer actual military strategy to a later discussion of the Long War. So no points of 15 for Fred, but it didn’t affect his ranking any among the GOP contenders.

My next topic was energy independence. Senator Thompson has this to say about it:

The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:

• A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
• Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
• An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
• Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

My biggest question is who makes all these investments that Fred speaks of? Shouldn’t we leave that to the private sector and not give out the opportunities for boondoggles and pork we see too often with federal research grants? This doesn’t really jibe with where I stand on the issue, but also talking about increasing domestic supplies saves him from a deduction. I think one point of a possible 17 is fair since there were other candidates I docked here. Fred loses the lead but stays in contention with 21.5 points, falling to third.

On the subject of entitlements, Fred doesn’t touch the third rail but does discuss his thoughts on health care:

Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some, however, choose not be insured; others cannot afford it. Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control. Those who propose a one-size-fits-all Washington-controlled program ignore the cost, inefficiency, and inadequate care that such a system offers. Access to affordable, portable health care can be made available for all Americans without imposing new mandates or raising taxes. Current government programs must also be streamlined and improved so that those who truly need help can get the health care they need. I am committed to a healthcare system that:

• Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families.
• Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility
• Modernizes delivery and administration of care by encouraging the widespread use of clinical best practices, medical information technology, and other innovations.
• Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers.
• Promotes and speeds medical research and life-sciences innovation.

In many ways, the criticism I have of the Thompson healthcare plan reflects that I had of his energy plan. For his talk about federalism, it seems like he looks to the bureaucracy to push particular solutions rather than vowing to decrease federal involvement. None of my contenders achieved more than 9 points and Mike Huckabee looked more to the private sector for his healthcare solutions for the most part. So I award Thompson 6 points, raising his total to 27.5 points and jumping him back to second overall.

I noted in my introduction to the next part that “Ben Franklin noted that nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. While you can’t argue with those two truisms, a third corollary one is that Americans feel like they’re being taxed to death. I know I do.” So how does Thompson look at taxes? Here’s what he says on his site:

The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:

• 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.

Well Fred, you certainly identify the problems, but to borrow a phrase from a long-ago Presidential campaign and commercial slogan, where’s the beef? Originally I awarded Ron Paul 2 points based on the same idea and lack of specifics, I think that’s fair for Fred as well. No one got more than 14 points of the possible 21, so the small increase won’t hurt Fred a lot. He sits in third place with 29.5 points.

I said this about Fred regarding my next topic, one I call “role of government“:

As far as Fred Thompson’s treatise on federalism goes, it misses the target by just one tick as he says, about education, “It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding.” No it’s not. Other than that, the man almost sounds like me and I’ll leap him into the running with 22 points. He may become a formidable candidate worth my support once he fleshes out some of the underlying issues he’s not gone into yet.

I’ll stand by what I said then, give Thompson the 22 points (of a possible 23) and now he vaults back into the lead at 51.5 points.

Now we talk about my second-most important topic, immigration. It was worth 25 points to start with and many candidates really helped themselves on the subject. Fred looks at immigration thusly:

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:

• Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
• Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
• Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Again, a lack of specifics hurts him to an extent. Some of the other candidates are very thorough with their plans and if I agreed with them ranked pretty highly. I’d have to rank Thompson among the lower tier of candidates at this time, giving him 6 points of 25. Since I deducted from people like John McCain, this isn’t so bad and keeps Fred in the running at 57.5 points. He’s right near the top.

Finally, we talk about the Long War, or as Fred puts it, national security. My views are here, and Fred’s are here:

The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America – or an America that appears weaker – will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:

• A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.
• A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.
• An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.
• A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.
• A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.
• A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

Perhaps the only two I’d rank higher are Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter, and it’s only because I’m wondering about whether the global alliances Fred speaks of would or wouldn’t include the UN that I don’t give him the full point total. As it is, I’ll rank him next down with 23 points. That puts him right next to the top at 80.5 points.

There were also categories I called “intangibles”, topics that didn’t rise to major issues with me but were enough to swing the totals by a point each. For Fred, he has one negative intangible, which is “(c)ombating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.” It sounds just a touch too much like censorship, so he loses one point from the total. He’ll finish with 79.5 points.

So I’ve now reevaluated Fred Thompson and added Alan Keyes to the mix yesterday. This is how the candidates shake out then:

1. Duncan Hunter, 82 points
2. Fred Thompson, 79.5 points
3. Rudy Giuliani, 79 points
4. Mike Huckabee, 76 points
5. Alan Keyes, 62.5 points
6. Mitt Romney, 45 points
7. Tom Tancredo, 41.5 points
8. Ron Paul, 34.5 points
9. Sam Brownback, 20.5 points
10. John McCain, 18 points

Really, I’d be happy with any of the top four candidates at this time. Thus, I’ll add Fred Thompson to my list of “recommended” candidates along with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, while still maintaining my endorsement of Duncan Hunter. But I’m still a little miffed at Thompson for skipping “our” debate in Baltimore since some of the proceeds from ticket sales were supposed to go to our state and local county parties. I hope he really doesn’t think that poorly of Maryland, since it’s a state I chose to live in (being born originally in Toledo, Ohio.) Maybe an appearance at Wicomico County’s 2008 Lincoln Day Dinner next February will make up for that. (hint hint)

And one final note for the Rushalanche of folks: if you’re curious about my blogging origins this post may answer the question.