Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
As I am finally getting settled in after a 2,000+ mile move across the country (I will be in sunny Seattle for a six month business assignment), I have time to celebrate Fred Thompson’s entrance into the Republican Presidential Primary and reflect on his chances as the race continues to develop. We have chronicled many of Fred’s achievements, his conservative record and his many advantages over his fellow competitors but, The Club For Growth does a great job of summing it all up in a recently published, well researched white paper culminating with this portion (HT:Freeman Hunt):
Senator Thompson’s eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.
His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.
However, Fred Thompson, as with any human being, has a few things he will need to address:
While this strong federalist philosophy casts a redemptive light on his opposition to tort reform, it does not fully excuse or explain a number of his votes. His persistent federalism also makes his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold all the more disappointing. It is difficult to reconcile Thompson’s fervent belief in a limited government with his enthusiasm for increasing government regulation on political speech. Thompson has never adequately addressed this contradiction and will have to do so. His recent doubts over the legislation’s efficacy are encouraging, least of all because all politicians make mistakes, and rare are those willing to admit their own.
I agree with Freeman when she states, “Thompson’s white paper stacks up very favorably against those of his fellow Republican candidates”. What did the Club for Growth, a leading driver of free market reform in the US, have to say about the others?
John McCain
“…his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom.
This antipathy is evidenced by the Senator’s vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes; and his persistent attacks on political free speech in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act.”
Mitt Romney
“Romney’s strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies. His landmark steps in the healthcare arena also exhibit a mixture of desirable pro-free market efforts combined with a regrettable willingness to accept, if not embrace, a massive new regulatory regime.”
Rudy Giuliani
The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media.
Mike Huckabee
“Governor Huckabee says he is a fiscal conservative,” Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said, “but his ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation. To be sure, Governor Huckabee’s record displays an occasional deference to a pro-growth philosophy, but that is only a small slice of a much bigger picture. The Club for Growth feels citizens deserve a full picture of where Governor Huckabee stands on the critical economic issues of the day.”
Sam Brownback
“Over his year and a half in the House of Representatives and his ten years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brownback has proven himself to be, on balance, a strong defender of limited government and pro-growth policies,” said the Club’s President, Pat Toomey. “On taxes, Social Security reform, school choice, and tort reform, Senator Brownback has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to fighting for American taxpayers. His record on trade, political speech, and government regulation of business is generally pro-freedom, with a few exceptions.”
Unfortunately, there are not white papers for the rest of the candidates so you are free to speculate about the remaining candidates in the comments on this post. I will personally posit however, that there is no better, more pro-growth, free market, electable, candidate out there than Fred Thompson.
Last 5 posts by Brandon- Gov Doyle to ride off in to the sunset as... The head of the Peace Corps? - June 25th, 2009
- Debate Via Email: Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold and Obama's Socialized Healthcare - June 19th, 2009
- Obama's Socialized Healthcare: A Debate - June 18th, 2009
- 99 Wisconsinites Open Carry at Picnic - May 20th, 2009
- Wisconsin Democrat Blocks Bill Honoring Reagan - May 19th, 2009
Are you sure you’re not leaving someone out?
I assume you are talking about Ron Paul. His record is definitely impeccable, I just don’t think he is electable. If you disagree, feel free to detail you opinion here.
As Ronald Reagan said in his memoirs: ” libertariaism is the soul of conservatism”
The libertarian policy of non-interventionism is conservative. Any intervention whether domestic or foreign increases the power of the federal government. While Bush republicans expouse small government, their policies have led to the largest expansion of federal powers and the largest decrease in individual liberty in history. These policies are not conservative and only lead to further strengthening the federal government and Thompson, Guliani and Romney would only extend or enhance Bush’s policies of government intervention, both foreign and domestic.
Ron Paul, libertarian and Goldwater/Taft Republican is the only popular candidate who represents the soul of conservatism.
Fred is a relative light weight when it comes to understanding the economic and political ramifications of the requirements of foreign policy.
While Ron Pauls views on non-interventionist foreign policies are not taken seriously in the MSM and government-centric republicans, these views are generating tremendous interest in the general public who have been exposed to them.
Flat tax is a stupid idea. Romney is right to have opposed it.
A 17 percent flat tax allowing families making under 35000 dollars to pay nothing would make the world a better place. we currently have a 9000000 word tax code and nobody knows what is in it. that is not good government.
Yeah of course Ron Paul is left out but Brownback is inculded in this post. How does Brownback have a better chance then Paul? Lets see Paul is not electable? He only supports what the 70 % of the American people support about being against our actions in Iraq. Seems like thats a pretty mainstream position to me.
As a voter who goes 75% Democrat / 25% Republican, I find this year’s race for the Republican nomination to be fascinating — real opinions, real differences, good basis for intelligent conversation.
Can someone remind me who on the Republican side is for the flat tax and who is for dumping the income tax and going with a national sales tax?
As of right now for the GOP to pick a electable candidate the debate I believe is between Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney with not only the name recognition but their various backgrounds. This doesnt speak to any other their level of conservativeness (I think i just made up a new word) but rather who would give the Republicans the best chance to win. In order to beat the Democrats in ‘08 the GOP needs to pick a candidate who gives them the best chance to win and I think one of these candidates gives them the best chance. Although I believe a Huckabee or even McCain could make a good President I dont think either of them has the staying power against the Dems. No need to even talk about the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP although his grassroots support has been impressive. I hope these same people will show the same effort to whoever the candidate is next year for the General Election.
I would guess there is almost no chance that a significant number of Ron Paul supporters would support any of the establishment GOP canidates. Mostly on account of Paul supporters lack of faith in the mainstream GOP.
If for a minute we assume that the War in Iraq is not going to be going any better in a year who would be a better candidate than Ron Paul if the GOP is serious about winning the Presidential election?
Ron Paul represents more Americans on the issues they care most about than any other candidate in the GOP field.
Republicans are going to be fighting up hill against the scandal issues as well as the War in Iraq in all likelihood and Ron Paul is uniquely equipped to take on both of these issues.