Analysis of Fred Thompson's Fall

This is the best analysis I have seen of the pros and cons of Fred Thompson's run for the Presidency.

He was NOT lazy; his command of policy equaled or exceeded that of his rivals, and he was, as he said, pretty clearly a consistent conservative for his public life. But his staff was poorly managed; it started much too late; his campaign was riven by internal fueds and suspicions: one faction accused the other of leaking to reporters.

Here's hoping Fred makes a return in some form, perhaps as VP.

Fred Thompson Officially Leaves the Race

Fred Thompson has posted a statement on his website having officially withdrawn from the presidential race. I will miss him in this race. If only he could have energized his campaign, I could see myself voting for him. Interestingly, Thompson has chosen not to endorse anyone. I had read that it was assumed he would throw his support to his friend, John McCain.

Why I Should Vote For McCain

For about a month and a half now, I have been considering voting for McCain. Saying that sounds so completely foreign to me, that I have spent this time trying to both find reasons not to vote for McCain and reasons to vote for one of the other candidates. CRChair has both asked why he should vote for Huckabee and stated why he won't be voting for McCain. Here is my logic for why I should vote for McCain.

First, let's start with the field of candidates:

Rudy Giuliani - His decidedly pro-abortion stance and liberal views has knocked him out as a candidate in my mind.

Mitt Romney - I just don't trust him. He reminds me too much of Kerry. He'd probably do a great job if he would pick a side and stick to his guns, but I can't vote for him without knowing who he is.

Ron Paul - He has many online supporters and I'll probably be blasted for this, but he's crazy. When I hear his ideas, I think, "That would have been great information to have when we were making the wrong decision." Getting us back to the gold standard just won't work without a complete upheaval and revaluing of things. Personally, I don't want my house value to drop just so we can get back on a gold standard.

Alan Keyes - With less visibility than Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, Keyes may be the only person who seriously thinks he's running... and even he may not think that. Besides, he's already lost to Obama once. Going up against Clinton would be even worse.

Fred Thompson - I like Fred Thompson. He's one of my top three picks. Unfortunately, he's rumored to be leaving the race. Even if he doesn't, he's not running like he wants to be president. Clinton would chew him up in the general election. I'd like to see him make a strong run or even be the VP on the ticket, but I don't see it as a winning ticket.

Mike Huckabee - He's a second of my top three picks. He's got support, especially among religious conservatives. Unfortunately, while he's socially conservative, he's fiscally liberal. Huckabee would be like having four or eight more years of GWB, but with less foreign policy experience than GWB currently has. I feel like I voted for the social conservative and got duped the first time GWB ran, so I'm hesitant to vote for the same thing again. I do like the idea of not having an income tax, but a national sales tax promotes saving, not spending. I don't know if our economy could handle less spending.

John McCain - That leaves John McCain. I hate to vote for someone because they're the last one left. After all, he could just be the last one I looked at and be worse than the other candidates.

First, I'll answer Matt's points.

Age: Yes, McCain is the oldest candidate, but then, so was Reagan when he ran. People are living longer and McCain will be younger than when Reagan left office. That being said, age isn't really that important. Health is. If McCain is healthy enough to be president for one term, then age shouldn't be a factor. After all, President Harrison died of pneumonia shortly after taking office. None of us are guaranteed life, that is why we have measures set up to take over the office if the president should fall sick or die.

Immigration: Yes, McCain has been soft on immigration, but he also realizes that we need to fix the problem of illegal immigration by securing our borders before we start kicking people out. Otherwise, we'll just have to kick them out again and again.

Fiscal Responsibility: This is actually one of the reasons I am voting for McCain. He is against pork spending and realizes that we need to be good stewards of our money. Yes, he did vote against the tax cuts, but that was because we needed to cut spending. Cutting spending means that someone is upset about not getting as much federal money. Tax cuts resonate well with constituents. McCain wanted to make sure that spending was cut rather than furthering the national debt and knew that without a tax cut, spending wouldn't be cut.

Pro-Life: Yet another reason that I am voting for McCain. The National Right To Life PAC has up a PDF with the candidates views here, but the do not appear to fully quote McCain. While McCain is OK with stem cell research on existing lines and in cases of in-vitro fertilization, he is not OK with creating new stem-cell lines. Would I like him to be against all stem cell research? Yes. Personally, I haven't seen evidence of neonatal stem cell research taking off. The advances seem to be in adult stem cell research. That being said, McCain does make the point "I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding." I have an easier time agreeing with babies that will be discarded. I, admittedly, have a hard time agreeing with purposefully destroying babies that are in a frozen state. I'd much rather see them used for couples that desperately want to have a baby, can't, but would be willing to carry another's baby from their in-vitro attempt. You can see McCain's voting record and his National Right To Life report card.

McCain-Feingold: I agree with McCain that political votes should not be bought. Having contribution limits is one way to do this. The other part of the bill, the part that limits free speech is the bigger issue in my mind. This part should be overturned by the courts.

The McCain Surprise: McCain is a maverick, but he's a maverick that sticks to his guns. If we realize what it is we're voting for, I don't think there will be too many surprises. He also has a lifetime conservative rating of 83% from The American Conservative Union. In comparison, Fred Thompson has an 86% rating.

Is McCain a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. As I stated above, McCain-Feingold, while good intentioned, should not have passed as it restricts free speech. I'd like to see McCain not only be anti-abortion, but also be anti-stem cell research. I don't agree with him on his views on the environment.

I do think that he will vote conservatively when it comes to abortion and I do think he will help rein in the federal budget, which will in turn help cut taxes and bring about a turn in the economy. I also think he can win. He won conservative South Carolina. Rasmussen Reports gives him an over 50% chance of becoming the Republican nominee. At the end of December, they had him beating Clinton 49% to 43% (Google cache).

What worries me about McCain? First and foremost, in the past McCain has not been known as being the friend of the conservative. Why am I leaning towards McCain? What am I missing? Second, I fear that he will choose Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is more liberal than McCain which would trouble me. Hopefully McCain will choose a more conservative running mate who has the heart of the evangelical voters... perhaps a McCain-Huckabee ticket? This would bring in the evangelical voters while giving Huckabee the foreign policy experience he would need to make a run for president following McCain.

Will I vote for McCain? As far as I can tell, I think I should. He appears to fit my views more than the other candidates and he has a chance to win. That being said, why should I vote for your candidate instead?

Fred Thompson: I don't care if I am president

I have said for a long time that the reason Fred Thompson will lose the nomination is that he simply doesn't want the job. It turns out he agrees with my analysis and claims he'd be just as happy to NOT be nominated.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it," he said. "I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

But he said others convinced him to run.

"I approached it from a standpoint ... of kind of a marriage. You know if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know it probably ain't going to be a good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing -- in this case you think it's a good thing for the country -- then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together," he said.

I guess this makes Thompson into the Steven Forbes of this campaign. He is not there to win, but to ensure that his issues are given a voice. Then again, it would not be the worst thing in the world to have a man in power, who is not a power seeker. Assuming, of course, that you believe he means what he says.

Republican Debate

I did not get to see the CNN/YouTube debate, but I did read the transcript and watched some of the question videos. If nothing else, you should check out the GOP Debate Song for a chuckle. All-in-all it was a pretty good debate. There was some avoidance of questions, but it was nice to hear some straightforward and direct answers as well. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but it reaffirmed good feelings about Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. The biggest surprise was that I found myself being OK with John McCain getting the nomination based on his responses tonight.

What Is a Pro-Life Candidate?

I've been mulling over in my head the question, "What is a pro-life candidate?" On the one hand, this may seem like an easy question, but given the current choice of candidates and what they claim versus what they've done, the issue has been made much muddier. Take, for example, Mitt Romney. Romney has been on both sides of the issue and appears to be flip-flopping, much like John Kerry did on issues last election. Can someone who has flip-flopped be a pro-life candidate? Remember, Ronald Reagan at one point was pro-choice. What about Fred Thompson? His Senate vote makes him look pro-life, but his stance is that abortion is a state issue. Therefore, it makes sense that he would vote "pro-life" in Washington. Can a candidate that votes "pro-life", but leaves the decision up to the states be a pro-life candidate? What if that same candidate is pro-choice at the state level? (To be fair, I haven't found conclusive evidence of whether Fred Thompson is pro-life or pro-choice at the state level.)

On another matter (and perhaps this is a different post), why has no candidate come out as a strong pro-life candidate? It appears that all of the candidates are either vocally pro-choice or are pro-choice and paying lip service to the pro-life movement. (i.e. "I am personally pro-life, but we have to let a woman choose.")

Bad News for Romney: Affleck thinks he'll win

Ben Affleck may be a good actor (though I know that is also highly debated) but he has been the poison pill for many in politics. Last night he apparently had a lot to say about Mitt Romney on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Chatting about the upcoming presidential race on the season finale of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the Cambridge homey said he thinks the GOP will end up with Romney because the ex-gov looks good, has nice hair - and the Republicans really don’t have anyone else.
“He says he doesn’t like abortion and he’s all clean-cut and he looks like a Ken doll,” said Affleck who was doing a rather amusing imitation of our ex-gov during the Romney rant.

If there is anything we have learned over the last few cycles of American politics, it is that Ben Affleck is always wrong. So this may be VERY bad news for Mitt's candidacy. If Ben says you're in, chances are you are out. And with Fred Thompson allegedly planning a July 4th launch maybe the race is about to change significantly.

Fred Thompson on Global Warming

Fred Thompson did a bit for Paul Harvey on Global Warming that I found pretty humorous. The audio can be found here and a transcript can be found here.

Michael Moore vs Fred Thompson

Michael Moore is the master of the theatrical moment in documentaries. His first documentary - Roger & Me - showed him standing outside of GM trying to get the CEO to come out and talk to him. His documentary on gun violence - Bowling for Columbine - included a moment where he brought Columbine victims to K-Mart to try and return the bullets still lodged in their bodies. Classic cinema. And the reason why, with the exception of the pure unfair propoganda piece that is Fahrenheit 9/11 - I am a fan of his films.

But he should be aware that in this year's race, he may facing other people who know what to do behind a camera. Yesterday, he challenged maybe-presidential candidate Fred Thompson to a debate on Cuba after the actor/politician/pretender-to-a-campaign criticized him for going to Cuba for a theatrical stunt for his next movie on the American Health Care system. He probably expected a politely-worded letter or a snide response from a press aide. Instead, Thompson turned to Google video. Very funny, and perhaps the first geniunely fun moment of this presidential campaign on either side. (If you are having problems playing this under the Safari browser, consider using Firefox or Camino.)

If Moore doesn't let this slide - and he is not the type to take the better part of valor - this could become a VERY interesting week for all of us.