THOMPSON, Fred – Election 2008 Dossier

Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee)

Biography:

[Wikipedia] … An American lawyer, lobbyist, and character actor. He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1994 through 2003. Thompson resides in McLean, Virginia near Washington D.C. He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in national security and intelligence. As an actor, Thompson has performed in film and television. He has frequently portrayed governmental figures. In the final months of his U.S. Senate term in 2002, Thompson joined the case of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing New York City District Attorney Arthur Branch. On May 30, 2007, he asked to be released from the show, potentially in preparation for a presidential bid. On June 1, 2007 Thompson formed a presidential exploratory committee regarding his possible 2008 campaign for President.
Fred Thompson was born August 19, 1942 in Sheffield, Alabama to Ruth Inez (Bradley) and Fletcher Session Thompson, an automobile salesman. He is a member of the Church of Christ. He attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, including Lawrence County High School. Thompson entered Florence State College, now the University of North Alabama, becoming the first member of his family to go to college. He subsequently transferred to Memphis State University where he earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy and political science in 1964, and went on to earn his J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1967.
Thompson was admitted to the State Bar of Tennessee in 1967 and worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969 to 1972. He was the campaign manager for Republican U.S. Senator Howard Baker’s successful re-election campaign in 1972, which led to a close personal friendship with Baker. He later served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal (1973-1974), and afterwards wrote a book about it. Among the cases Thompson has handled in his private law practice are personal injury claims and the defense of individuals accused of white collar crimes.

 

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Thompson worked primarily as an attorney, with law offices in Nashville and Washington, D.C. His work included serving as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1980 and the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1982, and a wide variety of other legal work. Some of his clients have been foreign corporations, such as a German mining group and Japan’s Toyota Motors Corporation. Thompson has also served on various corporate boards; for example, in the 1990s, he did legal work for the engineering firm Stone & Webster, while serving on its board of directors.
Thompson was appointed minority counsel for the hearings surrounding the Watergate scandal. According to Fox News, Thompson was responsible for Sen. Baker asking one of the questions that is said to have led directly to the downfall of President Richard Nixon – “What did the President know, and when did he know it>” Also, Thompson himself asked former White House aide Alexander Butterfield at the public committee hearing about listening devices in the White House, although “Thompson knew the answer to the question before he asked it” because Butterfield had earlier been interviewed by Senate investigators in closed session. Nixon was reportedly angry that Thompson had been selected as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate committee; Nixon believed the young Thompson was not skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses, and was apt to be outfoxed by committee Democrats. …
In 1977, Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti who was a former Tennessee Parole Board chair. Ragghianti had refused to release felons who had bribed aides to Democratic Governor Ray Blanton in order to obtain clemency. With Thompson’s assistance, Ragghianti filed a wrongful termination suit against the office of Governor Blanton. Thompson previously considered legal action on behalf of other state employees who were allegedly dismissed for political reasons. In the Ragghianti case, Thompson helped expose the cash-for-clemency scheme which eventually led to the removal of Blanton from the Governor’s office. In July 1878, a jury awarded Ragghianti $38,000 in back pay, and ordered her reinstatement. Ragghianti’s case would garner national attention, leading to the publication of a boot titled, Marie, and a film of the same name.
Thompson had been a lobbyist intermittently since 1975, and has earned about $1 million from his lobbying efforts during that time. He says that criticism about his lobbying activities is likely to increase as he gets closer to announcing his candidacy, but Thompson also expects that such criticism will produce “the same results” as it did during his 1994 and 1996 Senate races. … According to the Commercial Appeal newspaper:
“Fred Thompson earned about a half million dollars from Washington lobbying from 1975 through 1993 … Lobbyist disclosure records show Thompson had six lobbying clients: Westinghouse, two cable television companies, the Tennessee Savings and Loan League, the Teamsters Union Central States Pension Fund, and a Baltimore-based coalition that lobbied for federal grants.” …
After leaving the Senate in 2003, Thompson’s only lobbying work was for London-based Equitas, Ltd, which was a reinsurance company. … The 1977 Ray Blanton-Tennessee Parole Board scandal later became the subject of a 1983 book, Marie, by Peter Maas. Director Roger Donaldson bought the film rights and traveled to Nashville to speak with the people involved in the original case. After meeting with Thompson, Donaldson asked Thompson if he wanted to play himself in the movie; Thompson agreed. The resulting film, Marie was released in 1985. Donaldson then case Thompson in the part of the CIA Director in his next movie, No Way Out, in 1987. Thompson would go on to appear in many films and television shows. In the final months of his U.S. Senate term in 2002, Thompson joined the case of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing Arthur Branch. He also made occasional appearances in the same role on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, and the pilot episode of Conviction. On May 30, 2007, he asked to be released from the show.
… While in the Senate, Thompson served as the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997 to 2001. The committee investigated alleged Chinese attempts to influence American politics prior to the 1996 elections. … Thompson’s final report on the matter also pointed to another problem: “Our work was affected tremendously by the fact that Congress is a much more partisan institution than it used to be.”
He has an 86.1 percent lifetime (1995-2002) American Conservative Union vote rating, compared to 89.3 for Bill Frist and 82.3 for John McCain. Senator Susan Collins of Maine characterized her colleague this way: “I believe Fred is a fearless senator. By that I mean he was never afraid to cast a vote or take a stand, regardless of the political consequences.” Thompson was “on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes,” voting against those who wanted to federalize matters that he believed were properly left to state and local officials.
On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted on the Clinton impeachment. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction, and 55 including Thompson against. The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 including Thomson for conviction and 50 against. Conviction on impeachment charges requires affirmative votes of 67 senators. In the 2000 Republican presidential primaries, Thompson initially backed former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, who eventually succeeded Thompson in the Senate two years later. When Alexander dropped out of the presidential race, Thompson endorsed Senator John McCain’s bid and became his co-chairman. Both McCain and Thompson were contenders to the then-Governor Bush’s running mate in 2000. When control of the Senate passed from Republican to Democratic in 2001, Thompson became the ranking minority member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
… In March 2003, Thompson was featured in a commercial by the conservative non-profit group Citizens United that advocated the invasion of Iraq, stating: “When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us – before 9/11,” and he has remained supportive of that invasion. Thompson did voice-over work at the 2004 Republican National Convention. After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, he was appointed to an informal position by President George W. Bush to help guide the nomination of John Roberts through the United States Senate confirmation process. Thompson also is the chair of the International Society Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.
In 2006 he served on the advisory board of the legal defense fund for I. Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Jr, who was indicted and later convicted for lying to federal investigators during their investigation of the Plame affair. Thompson, who had never met Libby before volunteering for the advisory board, was convinced Libby was innocent. The Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund Trust set out to raise more than $5 million to help finance the legal defense of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff. Thompson hosted a fundraiser for the Libby defense fund at this home in McLean, Virginia. After President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence Thompson released a statement: “I am very happy for Scooter Libby,” Thompson said. “I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. This will allow a good American, who had done a lot for his country, to resume his life.”

POLITICAL POSITIONS

Wikipedia:

Fred Thompson is often described as a conservative. He has said that federalism is his “lodestar,” providing “a basis for proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, what level of government?” Thompson supports free trade and low taxes. He says that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision that ought to be overturned, and that he is pro-life, but he also said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions. Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming. He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within 30 or 60 days of an election was wrong and should be repealed. His position on immigration is that U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform. Thompson supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but he believes that mistakes have been made since then. He also believes that Iran should be taken seriously.

On The Issues:

Abortion:
- Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
- Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
- Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
- Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Budget & Economy
- Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
- Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
- Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Civil Rights
- Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
- Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
- Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
- Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
- Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual disorientation. (Sep 1996)
- Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
- Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

Corporations
- Commerce clause does not mean Feds can regulate everything. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Crime
- Impose truth in sentencing for violent crime. (Nov 1994)
- Voted NO on $1.15 million per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
- Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
- Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
- Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
- Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)

Drugs
- Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
- Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

Education
- Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
- Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
- Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
- Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
- Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Energy & Oil
- Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007)
- Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
- Voted YES on terminating CAFÉ standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
- Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
- Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFÉ fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
- Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
- Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Environment
- Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
- Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
- Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
- Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)

Families & Children
- Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)

Foreign Policy
- Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
- Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
- Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
- Voted YES on limiting the President’s power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
- Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
- Voted No on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
- Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)

Free Trade
- Market does more for freedom & prosperity than planners. (Jun 2007)
- Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007)
- Markets do more for freedom than any central planner. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
- Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
- Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
- Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
- Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
- Voted YES on renewing ‘fast track’ presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
- Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)

Government Reform
- Passionate support of states rights. (Jun 2007)
- Term limits counter professionalism of politics. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
- Voted YES on require photo ID (not just for signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
- Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions and corporations. (Apr 2001)
- Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
- Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
- Voted on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
- Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

Gun Control
- Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
- Voted NO on more penalties for gun and drug violations. (May 1999)
- Voted YES on loosening license and background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
- Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Health Care
- Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
- Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
- Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
- Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
- Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
- Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
- Voted NO on medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)

Homeland Security
- Europe mothballs its fleet, when all should build military. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
- Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
- Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
- Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
- Voted on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
- Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
- Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
- Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
- Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
- Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)

Immigration
- Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
- Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007)
- Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
- Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
- Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Employment
- Voted YES on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
- Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
- Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
- Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)

Principles & Values
- Reveals he suffers from cancer, but it won’t affect campaign. (Jun 2007)
- Religious affiliation: Protestant. (Nov 2000)

Social Security
- Social Security & Medicare are generational wealth transfers. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
- Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
- Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
- Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)

Tax Reform
- Progressive tax redistributes wealth without helping economy. (Jun 2007)
- Taxes burden production; keep rates as low as possible. (May 2007)
- Tax cuts stimulate the economy. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
- Voted YES on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000)
- Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
- Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)

Technology
- Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
- Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)

War & Peace
- I would do essentially what the president’s doing in Iraq.
- Take any chance to not get run out of Iraq. (Jun 2007)
- Internationalizing war effort will not win the war. (Jun 2007)
- President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007)
- Prophets of doom are wrong – we can’t cut and run. (Jun 2007)
- Goal of Iraqi enemies is to demoralize us. (Jun 2007)
- Serious & painful international sanctions on nuclear Iran. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
- Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
- Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
- Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
- Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
- Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

Welfare & Poverty
- Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
- Voted NO on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
- Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
- Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)

PERSONAL COMMENTS

Mr. Thompson’s record has remained consistent, and my interest is that he is not only a conservative, but a federalist – which means he respects the authority of constitutional law, as well as a states’ rights activist. In addition his stance on the Second Amendment, abortion, national security, et cetera is consistent and based upon common sense. In addition to this, he is supportive of the ethics laws that governed elected officials and will seek to prosecute anyone, either political party or an independent politician who breaks the law or the rules of congressional ethics, as demonstrated with his past record.

Fred Thompson’s greatest challenge will be to stand above the stained record of the Republican Party, although political party is not in play on my decision making – it is the ideological and decision making capabilities that will impress me combined with voting record and personal character. Thus far, the most candidates from the Democratic camp are sticking to the same old rhetoric of party ideology that has developed since the advent of progressivism toward a socialistic welfare state, and their insistence that the European model of government and society is better for America than the traditions, heritage and government system developed in the birth of the United States and cultured in the years that followed. Federalism is the key to Fred Thompson’s stance among his peers and opponents. However, he backed the Campaign Finance Reform bill (McCain-Feingold) which counteracts his voting record of being a federalist reformist, see Chronological Diary entry of September 21st below. Presently Fred receives a “C-” for statesmanship. Looking at the playing field of possible candidates, this puts Thompson behind Republican candidates, but still ahead of the Democratic possible candidates running at this time.

CHRONOLOGICAL DIARY

March 5th, 2007: Meet Fred Thompson by Doug Patton …

Three decades ago, two young lawyers worked behind the scenes, on opposite sides of the political aisle, to investigate the corruption and deceit that became known simply as “Watergate.” One, an ideologically liberal Democrat who had recently graduated from Yale Law School, served as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff advising the House Judiciary Committee during the scandal. The other, a wise-beyond-his-years conservative Republican Southerner with a Juris Doctorate from Vanderbilt University, served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. … In case, you haven’t figured it out yet, these two politicos are, respectively, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Fred Dalton Thompson.
The fact that Hillary Clinton has been plotting her return to the White House since the day she and her impeached husband absconded with a goodly portion of the furniture has been the nation’s worst kept secret for the last six years. … An increasing number of Dems think they have found their party’s salvation in the very junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Republicans in general are entering panic mode over the prospect of another Clinton administration, with social conservatives in particular voicing concerns that the only viable GOP candidates are not trustworthy advocates of their values, and the only trustworthy advocates of their values are not viable candidates. Translation: Giuliani, McCain, or Romney could beat Hillary but can’t be trusted. Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo are trustworthy advocates but can’t be trusted. Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo are trustworthy on social issues but probably are unelectable. Enter Fred Thompson, arguably the most viable potential Republican candidate for President of the United States since Ronald Reagan. And for many of the same reasons. … He is disarming and down to earth. His experience in the limelight has given him a perfect sense of timing. But most of all, he is experienced in public policy and brings to it a conservative worldview. He is pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment and pro-free enterprise. [He is a federalist-conservative]. And if he runs, he could not only defeat anyone the Democrats nominate, including Hillary Clinton, but his coattails just might be long enough to bring the GOP back to power in Congress.

[The GOP will never regain power until they have more in their membership like Fred Thompson and none like GW Bush or John McCain – and stick to their political platform of federalist conservatism – the constitutional government, true reform and advocate of a more limited government].

May 19^th, 2007 – Ex-Sen. Thompson Spars with Michael Moore by Joel Seidman, NBC News …

Former Sen. Fred Thompson … is sparring online with documentary filmmaker Michael Moore over his new movie, “Sicko.” … The Internet battle began a few weeks ago when Thompson panned the film and the Cuba trip in the National Review, saying, “Moore’s talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.” And he also attacked Moore and Hollywood, favorite targets of some GOP conservatives, “It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro. And, regular as rain, they bring up the health care myth when they come home.” Moore replied to Thompson on his own Web site, which he uses to publicize the film. Moore fire back challenging Thompson to a debate.
“While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the ‘box upon box of cigars’ violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.” Thompson has been known to be an aficionado of Cuban cigars. … Thompson shot back. Seen sitting in a leather chair in his home study, slowly puffing from a cigar, Thompson swivels toward camera and begins by saying, “I have been looking at my schedule Michael and you know I don’t have time for you.” Then he reminds Moore that the Cuban government once thwarted a documentary filmmaker by putting him in a mental institution. “Mental institution, Michael, might be something you ought to think about,” he says.

July 27^th, 2007: On Federalism by Fred Thompson …

The framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power. The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government. We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007. The federal construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not. This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency. The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this” And if so, that at what level of government?” But they don’t. The result has been decades of growth in size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, preemptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended. This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states. You know better than anyone how involvement from Washington affects nearly every policy, program, and aspect of your jobs. But beyond the nuisance of duplicative state and federal requirements, one might wonder if a division of responsibility between the federal government and the states is still important. The answer must be a resounding yes.
Federalism is not an 18^th century notion. Or a 19^th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21^st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer. It is true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of accountability. Who answers to the people if a program fails? The federal government will point to state authorities carrying out the program; the states will point to the federal government, which came up with the program in the first place. And in the end no one is more confused than the people the program is supposed to be serving, who can’t even say for sure who is responsible for what. This does not argue against all federal programs but it does require the recognition that there, indeed, are trade-offs. …
I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning. We need to allow local authorities to apply their own ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives.
A good example of this early in my Senate service was welfare reform. …key to our approach were elements of welfare reform that had proved successful in various states, such as Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. The result was a law that allowed us to better meet our commitments to our fellow citizens. It was one of the great political successes of the 1990’s, because Washington – of once – had the good sense to learn from state and local authorities and empower them in return.
When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.
We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress – strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve been backsliding.
The recent immigration bill was a case in point. The bill failed, and it failed for good reason. The federal government simply had no credibility on the issue.
The promises of the 1986 immigration bill have not been fulfilled. Current laws have not been enforced. The federal government has been failing in its fundamental responsibility to control the borders. Worse, when state officials have tried to act with reforms of their own, federal authorities have gotten in the way. In the end, many in both parties in Congress have learned a lesson: promises about immigration reform aren’t worth much unless you have credibility. And in this case there’s only one way that credibility can be regained. Federal leaders must do their job and secure the borders of the United States.
… Congress has aggressively federalized all sorts of crimes that the states have traditionally prosecuted and punished. While these federal laws allow Members of Congress to tell the voters how tough they are on crime, there are few good reasons why most of them are necessary. …
I held hearings on the over-federalization of criminal law when I was in the Senate. … Accountability gets displaced.
Now, there are plenty of areas in criminal law where a federal role is appropriate. More and more crime occurs across state and national boundaries; the Internet is increasingly a haven for illegal activity. A federal role is appropriate in these and other instances. But today the Federal Bureau of Prisons has quadrupled in size in little more than 20 years.
Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states. Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150 percent without results to match. … The most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.
It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals. …
Beyond specific policies, what is needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.
The first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. … It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
… Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How can we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.

And what does the political Left say? Read the Thompson entry at the OppoDepot website.

July 31^st, 2007: Analysis: Thompson’s Road a Bit Bumpy by Liz Sodoti, AP …

Not yet a declared White House candidate, Republican Fred Thompson may as well be for all his recent stumbles, from a staff shake-up to subpar fundraising to inconsistent answers about his resume. Despite the difficulties, the “Law & Order” actor and former Tennessee senator continues to post strong marks in national surveys and early primary state polls five months before voting begins. And his challenge is unchanged: living up to the hopes of dispirited Republicans searching for a conservative to rally around in the wide-open race. …
- Reported collecting nearly $3.5 million in his first fundraising month, surpassing comparable totals of some likely rivals but lagging his backers’ original $5 million goal. GOP officials say subsequent fundraising has fallen off some, which could indicate soft support for Thompson or reflect the traditionally slow summer.
- Fumbled questions about his past lobbying and his current policy positions. He was dogged for weeks by his conflicting answers about when he lobbied in 1991 for a family planning group. Now, he is under fire for reportedly saying he would sign legislation replacing all federal taxes with a sales tax, only have his spokeswoman deny such a pledge.
The difficulties appear to be lending credence to months-long skepticism about Thompson’s hunger for the quest, including whether he is ready for the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign and committed to doing the work necessary.
… Initially, Thompson’s advisers indicated he would enter the race as early as July. But the month came and went, and the tentative plan was pushed back until fall.

August 15^th, CNSNews, Susan Jones …

Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee … the not-quite-yet Republican presidential candidate – says the next president “should enact a fundamental overhaul of the tax code that makes it fairer, simpler, and more pro-growth.”
Thompson mentioned that there are a “number of ways to do that,” and he said the “principles and ideas found in the Fair Tax are a good place to start.”
The Fair Tax – a national retail sales tax designed to replace the income tax system and all payroll taxes – has the support of five declared Republican presidential candidates and one Democrat (former Sen. Mike Gravel). …
Fair Tax said it welcomes the support of Republicans like Thompson a well as that of Democrats, Independents and Americans who have given up on political parties.
“Wrestling control of the tax system away from an army of Washington, D.C., lobbyists requires the kind of grassroots wildfire the Far Tax campaign is producing,” said Ken Hoagland of Fair Tax.org.
… The group says a national sales tax, or consumption tax, would be self-limiting and enhance civil liberties, while direct taxes (such as the income tax) has been a tool of tyranny throughout history.

August 19th, Wikipedia …

Although not yet a declared candidate, Thompson has been included in several polls and shows increasing strength in the states that vote early in the caucus and primary schedule. [Chart located at Wikipedia entry]
The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for January 14, 2008. In Iowa, when polling began in earnest early 2007, Giuliani and McCain were far and away the favorites. Since then, McCain’s support has dropped to about 12%. Giuliani has held steady at about 18%. Romney has emerged as the favorite currently averaging about 25% of the vote. Thompson shows support that is comparable with McCain, i.e. about 12%.
The Nevada primary is scheduled for January 19, 2008. In Nevada, when polling began in early 2007. Giuliani and McCain were far and away the favorites. Since then, Giuliani has dropped from an average of about 35% to about 15%. McCain has dropped from an average of about 24% to about 9%. Romney has emerged as the favorite currently averaging about 27% of the vote. Thompson shows support that is second only to Romney, currently averaging about 22%.
The New Hampshire primary is scheduled for January 22, 2008. In New Hampshire, when polling began in early 2007, Giuliani and McCain were far and away the favorites. Since then, Giuliani has dropped from an average of 26% to about 19%. McCain has dropped from an average of about 32% to about 14%. Romney has emerged as the favorite currently averaging about 32% of the vote. Thompson shows support that is comparable to McCain, currently averaging about 14%.

According to a New York Times article, (July 18^th, 2007) Thompson intends to enter the presidential race after Labor Day, the first Monday in September) with a national tour; however, pro-Fred Thompson folks already have him in the primary race among other candidates. On May 18^th, Fred Thompson initiated his Internet campaign and posted a letter to Pajamas Media to acknowledge his online supporters.

On August 17^th, 2007, Fred Thompson announced to CNN that if elected president, he would work to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He also indicated he would push for a constitutional amendment to preserve the right of each state to decide for itself whether to allow gay marriage.

Thus far, as of June 12^th, 2007, endorsements include former U.S. Senator Alfonse D’Amato (New York) for Fred Thompson for Republican presidential nominee in 2008. He also, as of August 1^st, 2007, has the endorsement of eighteen current members of Congress, including Tennessee senators. It is interesting to note that Fred Thompson portrayed the President of the United States in a docudrama entitled Last Best Chance in 2005. A list of other films he acted in are at the Wikipedia entry.

August 22nd 2007: John Hanna, AP writer in Obama story …

Also on the bill at the VFW event on Tuesday, undeclared Republican candidate Fred Thompson said the U.S. must rebuild its military to fight global terrorism because leaders “took a holiday” in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War.
“Some people in this country think if we can pull out of Iraq, our problems will be over,” Thompson said. “You and I know better than that. Now we’re stretched too thin, and our equipment is wearing out.” … Thompson said the United States should not pull out of Iraq. …
“Our obligation to our veterans doesn’t end when they leave the battlefield,” he said. “It’s not just the right thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do.”

September 6^th, 2007 – Kevin Mooney [Cybercast News Service] …

Free market advocates in search of a champion who will take a firm stand against draconian global warming laws might have one in former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), who announced his run for the presidency Wednesday on NBC’s “Tonight Show With Jay Leno.” This vote of confidence comes from a Senate colleague, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who believes the weight of scientific evidence has shifted decisively against the notion of human-induced global warming in recent years. Unfortunately, many Republican and Democratic leaders, as well as leading presidential contenders continue to push for legislation that would “shut down America” in the name of “misguided alarmism,” Inhofe told Cybercast News Service. … Unlike many of his fellow Republicans, Thompson has demonstrated a willingness to confront elite opinion, Inhofe said. While Thompson is sure to antagonize the news media with his stand on global warming, Inhofe thinks he will find a receptive audience among average Americans. … In fact, a substantial number of scientists who had previously embraced positions supporting a link between human emissions and the current warming cycle, he said, have now reversed their position. Moreover, numerous peer-reviewed studies released in recent months show that natural variability, as opposed to human carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions, are primarily responsible for altering the earth’s climate. Some of Thompson’s recent commentaries have picked up on these latest findings and indicate he will not submit to false notions of a “scientific consensus,” said Inhofe. Thompson does, however, seem intrigued by new discoveries that suggest there is a strong correlation between solar activity and warming cycles. Some scientists, such as Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of St. Peterburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, have surmised that the current warming cycle on earth also affects neighboring planets, such as Mars. He points to data gathered in 2005 from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions as evidence for this claim. The data make it clear the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ South Pole have been diminishing for three consecutive summers, according to Abdussamatov. … While the U.S. government has not officially signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, state and local officials have been calling for caps on carbon dioxide emissions. In July, New Jersey became the first state to mandate significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. With the U.S. Supreme Court officially declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, Inhofe sees more opportunities for mischief among politicians eager to seize control of the private sector. A strong presidential candidate, who is not cowed by adverse press coverage, will be needed to help reverse this trend, and Thompson could do that, said Inhofe. …it is evident the Tennessee Republican’s broadsides took issue with those who claim there is a scientific consensus in favor of human-induced global warming. “Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever,” he said. “Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.” Thompson also invoked the name of Galileo, the Italian astronomer who was criticized when he used his telescope in 1610 to argue that the earth and other planets orbit around the sun. His ideas were considered heretical at the time. What passes for conventional wisdom, often collapse in light of new evidence, said Thompson.

September 21^st, 2007 – “Plain-Speaking” About McCain-Feingold-Thompson (James Bopp, Jr.) …

Maybe Fred Thompson isn’t as consistent as it appears when looking at the voting record and a recent interview asking him about the infamous McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill:

Fred Thompson, running for President as the “plain-speaking consistent conservative,” was asked about campaign finance reform by Laura Ingraham on her radio show the day after his Presidential announcement. She said, “One of the things that also happed in the Senate was McCain-Feingold and it was initially called McCain-Feingold-Thompson. Of course that’s campaign finance reform. As you know, Senator Thompson, the Supreme Court has struck down part of that as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, you know, issue ads that you can’t run before a general election or a primary contest, which for conservatives like me are just anathema to the First Amendment. You now say that you see unintended consequences resulting from campaign finance reform. Would you today tell us that you made a mistake in supporting campaign finance reform?”
Senator Thompson responded that he, “didn’t think it is a good idea” for corporations and labor union to give “large sums of money to individual politicians.” But this is not what Laura had asked, so she tried again: “What about the issue ads?”
Seeing the need to shift his approach, Thompson said: “Well, that’s a different story. I’ll get to that in a minute” and he then explained, in a long rambling paragraph, that he opposed “soft money,” which “poured” in and is “called bribery. We wanted to do away with that.” Then he said: “Now, they added on something that was a mistake and that is the issue ads that you were talking about and I voted for all of it. So I support the first part but don’t support that.”

Fred Thompson, therefore, under his own admission, says that he didn’t read the entire bill including amendments before voting for it. The office of Senator is an important position, no doubt, but being the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief, he will have to know exactly what he is signing when it something comes across his desk. And, if Senator Thompson knew that the addition was in it – and read it – then it is more troubling that he let it pass as is. This does not bode well for the former Senator of Tennessee in his bid for the highest office of the land.

Mr. Bopp continues …

… Apparently, in a flash of revisionist history, Senator Thompson thought it was a “mistake” to restrict issue ads that others added to McCain-Feingold over his opposition. But he reluctantly supported the whole bill anyway. While it is certainly true that Senator Thompson supported McCain-Feingold in total, his support was not reluctant. He did not oppose adding regulation of issue ads, and he hardly viewed such hyper-regulations at the time as a “mistake”. Indeed, McCain-Feingold was originally called McCain-Feingold-Thompson for a reason. … McCain-Feingold did pass in 2002 and even survived a legal challenge in 2003, but the issue ads restrictions were largely struck down early this summer. …

Read the story of Thompson’s participation in passing that infamous bill in Mr. Bopp’s. Basically, Thompson was part of an investigation into the Democrat foreign money scandals in regards to campaign funding, in which, as usual, those part of it went to jail except for the candidate, clearly involved. However …

Conservatives were profoundly disappointed, with the Weekly Standard proclaiming that Thompson “blew it,” because of his decision to “shift the focus” from “fund-raising scandals” to “campaign finance legislation.” Some were even harsher. A columnist for The Knoxville News-Sentinel wrote, “Senator Fred Thompson, fresh from his 1996 re-election by Tennesseans, soared into national fame with a big buildup over his prospects of using an investigation into campaign finance reform as a springboard for the presidency. Sinking ensued. Perhaps Time summed the situation up when it classified Thompson as among the losers of 1997: ‘His hearings promised much and delivered little. Forget the presidency. Can he still go back to Hollywood?”

… McCain-Feingold triggered a cascade of First Amendment challenges, mounted by 84 groups and individuals in 11 federal law suits, ultimately consolidated in McConnell v. FEC. The federal district court upheld most of the legislation, but struck down the “electioneering communication” provision. All parties appealed and the showdown in the Supreme Court was scheduled for an unusual pre-term oral argument in September. …
However, the “electioneering communication” prohibition was again challenged in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. [Of which Lighthouse Patriot Journal became a part of in support] WRTL sought to run broadcast ads in 2004 to lobby their two Democrat Senators to oppose the filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominees. On its second review of the issue, the Supreme Court held in June of this year that the “electioneering communication” prohibition could not be constitutionally applied to WRTL’s position was supported by an incredible array of non-profit groups across the political spectrum. [And yet McCain and Feingold were re-elected – figure that one out]
There was no more adamant supporter of campaign finance reform and the regulation of political speech and issue ads than Senator Thompson. His support was not reluctant; it was enthusiastic and repeated. He actively and enthusiastically supported regulation of and, ultimately, total prohibition of corporate and labor union issue ads, which he never viewed as a “mistake.” The issue ad prohibition was not added by others, as he claimed, but was an essential feature of the campaign finance proposals he co-sponsored, voted for, and diverted his own Senate committee’s investigation to justify. In short, Senator Thompson devoted much energy in the Senate to gutting the First Amendment.

All of this is peculiar coming from someone whose voting record demonstrates that he, Fred Thompson, is a protector of the Constitution and the rights and liberties of the American people. But for whatever reason or circumstance, the damage has been done, which reduces his score to almost a failing grade of D-minus. The standards of choosing a president and a congressional member in 2008 and future elections must be set high – we don’t want another Bill Clinton or a GW Bush.