« Guess Which Law Firm Has Donated More To Hillary Clinton Than To Republicans?
Dick Cheney on the Couch: Factitious Disorder and Career Criminality »
Guest Voice: Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of Bush
The Moderate Voice occasionally runs Guest Voice posts by people who have something to say, have an interesting viewpoint, don’t have website or just want to say something to TMV’s diverse readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV. We’ve run a lot of posts about Republican former Senator and actor Fred Thompson’s impending jump into the GOP Presidential nomination race.
We recently got this piece via a group email from controversial conservative Richard Viguerie, dubbed the funding father of modern conservatism. It presents a different view of Thompson than one we’ve written about so we’re running it in full as a Guest Voice here to encourage discussion. We’ve included its original links.
Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of Bush
by Richard A. Viguerie
The defenders of Fred Thompson’s troubling record have not attempted to explain, mitigate, or refute any of the concerns expressed in my article, “Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson.â€
Rather, they’ve attacked the messenger.
That’s exactly what President Bush’s political appointees–Peter Wehner and William McClay–did in response to my article in the Washington Post, “Bush’s Base Betrayal†and my book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006).
That’s an additional warning sign that Thompson may be a lot like Bush. Remember when Bush was running, a lot of good people thought he was a conservative.
Boy, were they taken in!
We’ve got to make sure we don’t go down that road again–not with Thompson or anyone else.
With Thompson, there are some definite warning signs. He was not actively pushing conservative legislation when he was in the Senate. The only issue he displayed any leadership on was–are you ready?–the McCain-Feingold Bill, which he cosponsored. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said the bill could not have been passed without Thompson’s tremendous help.
In defending his support of this horrible legislation, Thompson has said he did not realize how the law would actually work.
Really? How exactly did he think it would work?
The Los Angeles Times discovered that, before Thompson was elected to the Senate, he had been a lobbyist for an abortions right group. Thompson denied it. Then, the New York Times located the billing records, thereby providing “the smoking gun.†This raises significant questions about either Thompson’s honesty or his mental abilities to recall significant information.
Sure, people change their mind on issues, including abortion. We welcome converts to the pro-life side. Thompson could have said, “I regret being a lobbyist for the abortion industry. But because I was once in a leadership position in support of abortion, I’m better able now to combat that point of view.â€
Instead, he demonstrated that, at best, he might need medical attention to correct serious lapses in memory. I don’t know anyone who could forget about doing 20 hours of work for a pro-abortion group. At worst, Thompson may have gotten caught trying to “pull the wool over our eyes.â€
The Washington Post’s investigation found that, before his election, Thompson worked as a lawyer who argued against the government’s authority to regulate drug paraphernalia. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Thompson.
In another case, Thompson tried to challenge U.S. Customs’ right to search a boat on which 28,000 pounds of marijuana was found. Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed.
In addition to his work as a criminal lawyer, Thompson has filed a lot of civil suits. As a result, the political action committee of the plaintiff lawyers gave him the maximum $10,000 donation to each of his two Senate campaigns.
The Post reported, “Thompson defied Republican orthodoxy almost as soon as he arrived in Washington in 1995 as a freshman senator.â€
To be fair, Thompson’s lifetime voting record in the Senate from the American Conservative Union was 86.1%. That’s not too bad. But it’s not as good as a lot of Republican senators, especially those from “red states.â€
Conservatives need to take a good look at all of the candidates. We need to ask hard questions. If there’s a problem, we need to find out about it now, not later.
By raising issues of concern to conservatives, the campaigns can be forced to address our issues, rather than playing defense on the liberals’ terrain.
Obviously, Thompson would like to capitalize on his television persona as far as it can take him without having to take specific stands on tough issues. The truth is he’s no different from a lot of other candidates who’d like conservative support without firmly committing to conservative positions.
I’m going to do my best to see that doesn’t happen.
I hope conservatives will not be “climbing on board†the Thompson bandwagon or anyone else’s bandwagon without getting good answers to our questions and concerns.
Thompson can use the questions that have been raised about his record to try to establish a real bond with grassroots conservatives. If he does, he can win the nomination and the election. But if he comes across as a Bush-type Big Government Republican, I can tell you how this movie will end.
RESPONSE (and great exception) TO VIGUERIE can be found here, and here, and here.
20 Responses to “Guest Voice: Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of Bush”
I’m happy to see that the concerns of reight wing pundits about the republican candidates centers on the question if they are conservative enough, not on the point of electability. This will further reduce the chances of the GOP in 2008. Good news!
I agree Gray. Instead of picking the candidate with the best chance to win in ’08 and getting behind them (in my view it is probably Romney) conservatives persist in picking their candidates apart, only approving those who have stuck to a rigid ideology their entire lives. While I think Thompson was an unremarkable Senator and would be a mediocre candidate, it is amusing to see the right set the bar so high that no one actually attains their standards.
The candidate must have a stable family life- with not more than one divorce, must have a solid history of being pro-life and anti-gay marriage/civil unions, must be solidly behind the second amendment, must have a decidedly conservative voting record, must be a “real” Christian with family values- whatever that means- must never have raised taxes anywhere for any reason (or will encounter disapproval from Grover Norquist, lol), must be ready to build a wall on the US/Mexico border, and must have vetoed every spending bill he ever encountered. He must epitomize the glory days of the Reagan era, and should, most importantly be prowar and a testosterone filled man’s man, who wouldn’t shrink from pushing the little red button if called to do so. Above all, he must vilifythe social programs of big government and worship free markets and entrepreneurship. Last but not least, he must believe in American exceptionalism, and build his proposed foreign policy around that belief.
I’m not sure how that jives with reality since the current frontrunner, Giuliani, fails about 2/3 of the litmus tests that you list, Kim.
But hey, your version makes it sound like conservatives are real dummies so go ahead and run with that!
Just as you and Gray take hope from making false assumptions about conservative voters, I’ll take my hope from the obvious misreading of fact; it’s still a long way till Nov ’08 and and Democrats making assumptions that the election is in the bag can only be a good thing for the GOP.
Also, one would think those of self-professed “moderate” views would take some heart when a possible Republican candidate was essentially painted as something of a departure from rigid conservatisms.
However, not the case……therefore, once again demonstrating “moderate” here is really a euphemism for “let’s go Democrats!”
Gray, yes, amazing, how conservatives care that their candidate is **gasp** conservative!
That your party wins is good, but your values must win as well. Bush was electable (why, I can’t fathom, but obviously he was) but turned out to be a lousy conservative, promoting huge government and overspending. Conservatives understandably are worried about making sure that this time around, the GOP candidate is a real conservative. Think of it this way, if Huckabee ran as a democrat and won, would you be happy? Sure the dems would have won, but you’d have someone in the presidency who openly admits they don’t believe in evolution!
Conservatives, at least some of them, have learned their lesson. A very tough race is coming up for them, so of course electability is important, but not all-important. As hard as it is for you to understand, conservative people want the best for the country, though they have different ideas on how to achieve it than you. Winning is fine, but not at the cost of electing someone who would not hold to ideals central to conservative thought.
Lynx: Well said.
CO: LOL
CS- When push comes to shove, I don’t think Giuliani will be the nominee. And, you may disagree with my comment, but don’t you agree there’s a lot of dissatisfaction among conservatives with the current group of candidates, which may hurt them in ’08? Just look at the pounding McCain has taken. He’s now has less money than Ron Paul.
I do admit time can change a lot in politics, but I stand by my ignorant point that the conservative pundits are expecting too much-my conclusions come not from what I think of conservatives, but from what the pundits have gone on record as saying about them.
Vigeuri’s not a pundit, he’s a far right activist. And just like the far left activists, he’s calling for purity and litmus tests. That’s what these guys do, particularly at this phase of the process. That’s one part of the picture; the polling data which shows that a lot of the conservative base is looking more toward electability shows things from a different perspective.
Lynx- I don’t often disagree with you, but this time I do. For me, it is more important that a candidate unite the country as best they can and reach out to the other side-rather than cling to their ideology- I’d rather have a pragmatist like Giuliani than a rigid ideologue like Sam Brownback.
By requiring all kinds of ideological tests for these candidates, these pundits are not allowing them to be themselves (before you say anything I also don’t like it when the Democrats do this)
Also, the moderate wing of the Republican party consistently gets marginalized- as all of the GOP hopefuls are forced to play to the base. Yes, it happens on both sides, but that is what is building the movement for Unity ’08 in this country. I happen to think that ideologues in both parties have too much control over the primary process, but of course it seems more obvious to me when Republicans do this.
kritter a balance has to be made between electability and ideology. Naturally different people will draw it in different places. My comment was directed at Gray, who seemed gleeful at the idea that conservatives were looking for a conservative and not necesarily someone easy to elect.
Of course demanding only purity is a bad idea, and divisiveness is terrible for a country. That’s why I’ll consider voting Republican if Hillary and Giuliani get nominated. That said you want to elect someone that can get the job done the way you want it done. If I were a conservative I’d be terrified of ending up with another Bush. I’d be looking for a candidate with good conservative credentials (100% purity is only demanded by 100% radicals) who also has shown capacities for bipartisanship. Obama is that candidate for the dems, I don’t know who it could be for the repubs, but I understand them being exacting in a candidate that is going to face a very hard race.
Lynx- I understand wanting an ideologue from a Conservative point of view, but I have to agree with Gray, that choosing a candidate that pleases the base and passes the litmus tests is not the same as finding someone who can win in the general. It seems to me the more someone appeals to hardline conservatives, the harder time they will have winning the presidency, since independents and moderates will be turned off and either stay home or vote Democratic (or third party if there is a candidate).
The same would happen to the Democrats if they picked someone like Edwards, imo, whose message appeals only to liberal Democrats.
A pretty darn good example of why I keep trying to find where the moderate/swing voters speak out.
I guess I ought to do a google on the phrase “political compromise” and see if that phrase as even ever appeared in any blog.
We get the voices of maybe 500 people featured in articles and maybe another 5,000 reacting thereto.
How is that at all indicative of what the other 122 million people are really going to do come November, 2008?
I love how conservatives are to be shocked to see that a lawyer would advocate for his client’s positions.
Likewise conservatives are to be shocked that Thompson has argued to limit the scope of governmental oversight and regulation which required a store owner to have a license to sell literature the government didn’t like.
Hmmm…limiting the reach of government. Used to be a time that was called conservative.
Is Thompson too cozy with the trial lawyers?
Probably.
Is that enough to discount his run for the Presidency out of hand?
Probably not.
Is Thompson too cozy with the trial lawyers?
Is it a good enough stick to try to beat him with if you support a different candidate?
Probably.
Opposition from the likes of Viguerie is probably way down the list of potential problems for a Fred candidacy.
I do think, though, that RV’s comparison of Fred to W is apt. If you didn’t like what you got with W, there’s a pretty good chance you wouldn”t like what you get from Fred.
Still, in this lefty’s view, better Fred than Giuliani, who gets more truculent by the day.
Hmm, JJC, imhomit’s better to fight Giuliani than Thompson. Even though the actor is now facing scrutiny from the right side, it’s Giuliani who has more corpses in the cellar and who will be much easier to be exposed as the hollow hypocrite that he really is.
Gray, I would rather have Fred as the candidate than Rudy because of one of them actually won, I’d rather it be Fred. I think Fred only acts belligerent. I think Rudy really would be.
I agree that Rudy’s baggage will drag him down, but I suspect Fred is already cooling to the prospect of actually running. I bet you’ll see Fred looking reluctant pretty soon, either because he really is or because it serves him better to act that way, or likely both.
Fred doesn’t have the fire in the belly, Giuli has too much baggage. Once the nasty little details surface about his three wives and his last divorce- I can’t see the social conservatives sticking by him.
Honestly, neither of them will beat Hillary.
[...] Guest Voice: Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of BushThe Moderate Voice – The Los Angeles Times discovered that, before Thompson was elected to the Senate, he had been a lobbyist for an abortions right group. Thompson denied it. Then, the New York Times located the billing records, thereby providing “the smoking gun.â [...]
[...] Guest Voice: Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of BushThe Moderate Voice – The Los Angeles Times discovered that, before Thompson was elected to the Senate, he had been a lobbyist for an abortions right group. Thompson denied it. Then, the New York Times located the billing records, thereby providing “the smoking gun.â [...]