January 11, 2008
Human Events Endorses Thompson
I'm not sure how much the Human Events endorsement will help Fred out. The National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney didn't seem to help out much, and NR seems to have a much wider circulation than Human Events. But I agree with the editors: Fred Thompson's certainly has the most bona fides as a conservative.
One thing that bothers me about Thompson is, as Human Events mentions, his support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform--a law which is clearly unconstitutional in my mind. Why do conservatives constantly bring this up when talking about McCain, but give Fred a pass on it?
Yesterday, Sen. Thompson told myself and a few other bloggers that celebrity endorsements don't usually count for much. His supporters will have to hope that this endorsement plus his performance in South Carolina last night will be enough to move him up in the polls.
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.I think its that last part that is most attractive to me. But, again, it seems to me that both Rudy and McCain also do a good job of attacking the far left as the warmed over anti-American commies that they are. McCain even goes so far as to question the patriotism of the radical left. I like that.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
To be honest, my ideal candidate would be a combination of something like this:
John McCain's life story and commitment to American winning its wars, even if that means firing incompetent generals and field commanders.
Ron Paul's domestic agenda, divided by two, minus the tin-foil, and then rounded to the nearest politically realistic position.
Mike Huckabee's personality. And Huckabee's Chuck Norris.
Mitt Romney's business experience, family, and hair.
Duncan Hunter's position on immigration.
Do these add up to Fred Thompson? No, but Thompson's positions seem to be closest to my own Burkean libertarianism.
Remember, when we vote we aren't looking for the ideal--one of the reasons I could never fully swallow the libertarian pill--but rather for the best of the given choices. We are, as Trey Parker and Matt Stone reminded us four years ago, deciding between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
UPDATE: Yup, you're right, it's Giant Douche not Giant Douchebag.
You know what I can't stand? Giant douches in the comments section that don't understand the differences between a metaphor and name calling. Saying the choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich is just a metaphor for no candidate is perfect. Saying the commenter is a giant douche--that's just name calling.