Details on Border Security

Fred has put out a more detailed plan for securing our borders. Highlights are:

- No Amnesty
- Double ICE agents and add 25,000 border security agents
- End sanctuary cities by removing discretionary funding for cities that formally support being a sanctuary city
- Focus prosecution of "coyotes", alien gang members and previously deported felons
- Make English the official language

There are several other items--take a look.

Journalism at its Finest

In my daily browsing for articles on Fred, I came across this one by John Frank at the St. Petersburg Times which reminds me how bad our "journalists" are. Try on a couple of quotes:

Like most good Southern yarns, the Fred Thompson story is steeped in legend. His small-town upbringing in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., is humble and distinct on a campaign trail worn by front-runners in suits that match their polished images.
...
But the story's potency is only as good as its authenticity.

So from the beginning of the article, Frank has already deemed that the story is "steeped in legend". So, let's look to see what is legendary and, by insinuation, not fact.

Confirming a tale from nearly 50 years ago is difficult, to say the least.

Can you tell where Mr. Frank is coming from here?

Interviews with more than a dozen folks in Thompson's hometown who either knew him or worked with him at the plant in 1960 indicate that his stump speech story is largely true.

No fire yet. Heck, no smoke yet. Mr. Frank then sites several specifics that he found someone to confirm. Now we come to the real stuff:

Few former workers can actually say they remember seeing "Freddie," as he is known in his hometown, working on the assembly line. But they recall he was one of the dozens of local boys who worked at the plant as temporary employees after school let out.

Hey, maybe he didn't work on the assembly line!

It's pretty well remembered that Thompson worked the graveyard shift, and some of the other working conditions he describes seem accurate.

Nelda Morrow, a 48-year veteran of the factory, said the noise of the presses stamping out steel parts could be deafening. And Ronnie Perry, 63, said factory bosses didn't make employees wear earplugs back in those days.

But no one can pinpoint what Thompson is talking about when he says he worked in ankle-deep water. The factory rarely flooded, though the large flat roof would sometimes leak.

"I don't know why he said that," said Doyce Shaddix, who worked at Murray for 43 years. "It wasn't like it happened all the time."

So there you have it. Mr. Frank couldn't find anyone to verify that there were times that the conditions included ankle deep water. I actually find it interesting that Ms. Shaddix's quote was "It wasn't like it happened all the time" which to me says that it did happen.

So here is an entire article dedicated to casting dispersions about Fred and it is all based on not finding anyone who remembers him standing in ankle deep water 50 years ago.

Shees.

Fred to Announce Social Security Plan

The Palm Beach Post was present when Thompson announced that a more detailed Social Security plan will be announced next Monday.

Saying he's taking a political risk, Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said Monday he'll unveil a Social Security proposal soon that includes private accounts and slows the growth of benefit increases for future retirees.

This is the kind of boldness that Fred has hinted at since before he got into the race. I'm looking forward to seeing the details.

Fred's Breaking of the Rules

Jay Cost over at Real Clear Politics has written an article talking about why Thompson is being panned by the political elites and yet polling well. His basic answer is that Fred is breaking "fake" rules, but not the real ones. One example that he gave was the way that Fred announced his candidacy on Leno--he was panned for doing it, but it got him a lot of coverage.

Ultimately Fred is frustrating the media establishment by breaking their artificial rules.

FDT on Schaivo

Fred was given another opportunity to address the Schaivo case today and he gave an answer the really explains his initial answer. The interview was with Jake Tapper of ABC News in Florida today. It really sounds like a very emotional issue as he had to deal with a similar situation with his own daughter. It may or may not be the answer that "social conservatives" like, but I think most will be able to appreciate his position. I cannot think of a more difficult decision that a parent would have to make.

"I had to make those decisions with the rest of my family," Thompson said. "And I will assure you one thing: No matter which decision you make, you will never know whether or not you made exactly the right decision."

GOP hopeful Thompson said that "making this into a political football is something that I don't welcome, and this will probably be the last time I ever address it. It should be decided by the family. The federal government -- and the state government too, except for the court system -- should stay out of these matters, as far as I'm concerned."

Campaign Contributors

Small story by the AP talking about Fred's campaigning strategy. The article itself it more or less inane, but there was one statement by Fred that caught my attention:

Thompson pointed out he comes in second among Republicans in most national polls and has more than 100,000 contributors, despite making decisions that defy conventional wisdom.

The point that caught my attention is that his number of contributors is more than 100,000. On his Q2 filing, he reported just over 70,000 contributors. So in less than one month he has added 50% more contributors! Not bad.

In a connected story, there have been some reports of Fred paying $100,000 to join in on a Florida discussion and then only making a 5 minute speech before leaving for the debate. I don't know what exactly went on there (I haven't seen what I consider an objective account of the event), I noticed on the official site (I can't find the reference right now) that said that Fred had to be at the debate site over 4 hours ahead of time for his walk through for the debate. I wonder if the scheduling just did not line up for him going through a long speech.

The Florida Debate

I didn't see the debate live. But I have used my lunchtime and some other downtime today to watch the YouTube'd debate. The first ten minute segment can be found here--you can get to the other 8 segments from there.

My partisan analysis: as in the previous debate, Fred and Rudy did well. McCain did ok as did Huckabee. It all fell off from there. I thought that Mitt did a very poor job myself, though I have seen others that thought that Mitt did well. Note that I don't give credit for applause lines. The best lines were not delivered by Fred and Rudy (though they did have some good lines), but they did have the best content.

Fred was aggressive and he kept on the others without tearing them apart. The Fox team did a good job of keeping the debate lively.

In Fred's after-interview, he touched on something that I noticed that bothers me: everyone likes to talk about Hillary and Reagan. More effort should be taken to talk about the future of the party, which is an important topic. It is also where the distinction between Fred and Rudy comes into focus. Fred will take the party into a federalist and generally conservative approach. Rudy will be a strong leader, but will allow the Democrats to help write or negotiate the domestic agenda which will not be particularly conservative.

Fred on Hannity and Colmes

Here is the post-debate interview of Fred on the Hannity and Colmes after the Florida debate on Sunday. I think he handled himself very well here and his interactions with Colmes were wonderful.

What Conservative?

There has been a lot of debate on who the "real Republican" or who is "more conservative" than the other. It is a truly complicated discussion because it is hard to exactly define a conservative. The nature of the discussion, including yesterday's debate on Fox, has to do with social conservatism--positions on abortion, gun rights and gay rights (among others). There has even been a little bit of discussion regarding some tax and spending aspects of conservatism (i.e. the ongoing tiff primarily between Romney and Giuliani regarding who cut spending more or who cut taxes more--on increased either of those less).

Ruben Navrette of the West Central Tribune points out another area of conservatism that has not been addressed: trade policy.

The Republican candidates are having the right argument about the wrong issues, while going after the wrong people. True, there are Republicans running for president who, on some issues at least, sound like Democrats. But it’s happening in the areas of trade, protectionism and economic competitiveness. And that’s where Republican voters should be concerned, not with the litmus tests imposed by the social conservatives.

You only had to spend a few minutes watching the recent GOP presidential debate from Dearborn, Mich., to pick up on this dynamic. Centered on economic issues, the forum was filled with the sort of doom-and-gloom class warfare that we usually hear from Democrats who cozy up to organized labor.

Navrette points out the Republicans that sound like Democrats:

But the Democratic impersonators must have found it a constituency worth addressing. Ron Paul, a libertarian, condemned what he called a “transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy” and the fact that “you have more billionaires than ever before.” Duncan Hunter, a hawk on national security, lamented the “1.8 million jobs that have moved to communist China from the United States,” which he attributed to the fact that “we’ve fractured the great industrial base of this country and we pushed it offshore with bad trade deals.” Tom Tancredo, who rode his opposition to illegal immigration into the presidential race, complained about those countries that aren’t “playing by the rules” and “undercut American products around the world.” And Mike Huckabee, a favorite among religious conservatives, insisted that, for many Americans, the economy is “not doing so well” and they’re not sure that “the next day is going to necessarily be a great and prosperous one.”

He then pointed out that several candidates did not share that opinion, specifically Fred, Rudy and McCain while he points out that Romney plays both sides of the fence.

Here is my take: he is absolutely correct about the poor record on economic conservatism on the part of some of the candidates. But they are primarily second teer candidates--I think because of their positions on these issues. For me, you need to take both parts (or all three parts) of conservatism into account: who is a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative as well as a trade and foreign relations conservative.

My scorecard is: Rudy, poor on social, fair on fiscal and very good on at least the foreign relations part of the trade and foreign relations. Mitt, fair on social, fair on fiscal, and who knows on foreign relations and trade.

Fred is good or very good in all three areas. Some may gripe about shades of meaning or people that he has worked with in the past, but when you look at what he proposes and what he has done, his record is solid. He will work for socially conservative ideals. He will pursue a conservative fiscal policy--and he is willing to talk about tough choices up front. He will work for a conservative foreign and trade policy. And he is the only candidate about which that can be said.

Fred at Family Research Council Briefing

Fred has a contingent at the FRC Washington Briefing. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic is reporting that Fred has a heavy contingent there. Apparently Fred wants very badly to come out of this meeting with strong support from evangelicals. He made comments talking about his "heart" meeting his "head":

"My political record and my head were always there, always has been there, but I must say that it took life's experiences for me to absorb the real importance of it all. I had been blessed early in my life when I was young...and I have been blessed when I was not so young. I've had the ultimate tragedy that a father can have and the ultimate blessing that a father can gave. With regard to Ms. Hayden, I can only say that after the first time in my life, seeing the sonogram of my own child. I will never think exactly the same again. I will never feel exactly the same again. Because my heart now is fully engaged with my head."

FDT vs Mitt, Rudy on Immigration

Fred is criticizing Mitt and Rudy as being latecomers to the conservative cause. The internet ad is aiming at abortion. In a discussion in Georgia, he hit them on immigration and sanctuary cities in particular. It seems that Fred is coming out swinging and aiming at Rudy and Mitt.

I think the reason is clear. At the debate, he was excluded from the actual "debate" (argument) and almost put into an "also ran" type category. He is engaging both of them in the discussion bringing him into even more relevance.

Mitt is the one that is getting ticked off with the accusations.

Romney, who was campaigning in South Carolina, answered back, arguing that as Massachusetts governor he authorized state police to enforce federal immigration law and threatened to veto a measure allowing undocumented immigrant students to pay the same in-state tuition at state colleges as residents.

"I've been running for president a lot longer than he has," Romney said derisively of Thompson. "I've been talking about sanctuary cities and illegal immigration from the very beginning. I welcome Fred Thompson into the race, but he needs to get in a little longer and look at the records of those of us who have been talking about these issues for some time."

Fred may be wrong on Mitt regarding immigration (though not on abortion), but the reaction is what I find interesting. What Mitt call "the very beginning" is the beginning of his campaign. Fred's basic point is:

"I was walking the walk when others weren't even talking the talk yet," Thompson said at an appearance with supporters in Georgia.

He said he voted in 1996 to outlaw sanctuary cities, where city employees are not required to report illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

So Fred is pointing out that his "beginning" goes back farther than Mitt's and Rudy's.

It is clear from an earlier post that immigration is a big topic for Fred.

Negative Ad?

Fred has released a web ad showing statements by Romney and Giuliani regarding their (and his) statements regarding their conservative / liberal leanings, particularly on abortion. For those of us who have paid attention to this campaign, there is nothing new here.

The Boston Globe has an article regarding this ad. The interesting part of the article is the response of a Romney spokesman:

Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, responded this way: “Interesting how the candidate who was the last one to enter the race is the first one to run a negative ad. But, that’s what happens to candidates who are without any new ideas of their own.”

This coming from the Romney camp? Oh well.

Here is my question: what constitutes a "negative ad"? If I say in an ad that "HillaryCare is a step to socialized medicine", is that negative? How about "Hillary is a socialist"? Both are true statements. Both have negative connotations. In an ad, I would not consider either to be "negative ads". If I said in the ad "Hillary is a deceiver and a liar", that would be a negative ad.

Yelling about negative ads is not a good move--and I don't think the Fred ads are particularly negative--they just point out positions of his competitors.

Fred on the Border

Here is an "Ask Fred" clip on the border fence. His main point: it is not a question of IF we can do it, but if we have the will to do it.

More Details

As time goes on, Fred is adding more meat to the framework of ideas that he started with. MSNBC's First Read talks about Fred's speech today at the Club for Growth where Fred added ideas for reforming Medicare (basically adding a bit of a means test to the program--specifically adding higher deductibles for higher income seniors. He clarified that any changes would be for future retirees rather than anyone currently in the system.

He continues to talk about points that he has been making bofore: changing the AMT and Social Security and lowering the corporate tax rate to at least 28 percent.

This is a trend that I expect to see continue. Fred started with his big principle (Federalism). To that, he has added the issues section of his web site. These are not specific proposals (15 point plans, etc.) but rather general policy directions. Since that time, Fred has been slowly dribbling out specific policy proposals that are in line with those issues. As we get closer to the elections, I expect to see more and more details. Basically,

Fred is pacing himself. I like the approach.