Fred on The Big Story

Fred was on with John Gibson and Heather Nauert on The Big Story. Short, but good interview. No big news on the interview, but take a look.

Fred Comments on Mitt's Immigration Problem

Fred made a good observation about what the significance is of Mitt firing his lawn care company this week due to the press finding illegal immigrants on the workforce.

"When you're talking about what a good manager you are and what a great manager you will be, how you've been a manager all your life and this sort of thing and then when you have problems kind of in your own back yard, literally, then it brings all those issues back up."

The issue is not so much that the company had illegal immigrants as it is that he knew that they had illegal immigrants a year ago and is now firing the company when the pressure of the press is on. Fred's criticisms are spot on.

Will the Huck Surge Help Fred?

Ray Robison has written a blog post postulating that Huck's boom may end up helping Fred in the end. Ray argues that there is an "inevitability" of Clinton and an electibility of Rudy at work in this mix, but Clinton is being shown to be beatable.

Along with that, conservative voters are feeling free to jump off the Giuliani train. The real question then is - are they flocking to Huckabee because they truly want him to be president? Or is Huckabee simply the rebound guy for voters leaving a dysfunctional marriage to a candidate they never really loved?

He might be. If so, now that these voters have been stripped from Giuliani they probably aren’t going back and Thompson will likely get them in the long term as the gloss of a new love wears thin and they see that Huckabee also falls short with his conservative credentials.

Huckabee has been the short term beneficiary of this shift because he has performed well in recent months. His charm offensive is impressive, he performs well under pressure, but serious questions are being raised about his policies while governor. In an election which still hinges mostly on national security for the Republicans, Huckabee has little to call upon. What’s worse, he may be charming but he doesn’t come across as tough enough to be able to go toe-to-toe with future brutal despots and terrorist groups. You might want Huckabee for a boss, but probably not as the cop to come save your hide.

Perhaps more importantly, Governor Huckabee is vulnerable on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is perhaps the only issue right now that the base of both parties cares about intensely. Despite opposition to reform by liberals, the base of the Democratic Party has been grumbling almost as much as Republicans over the tidal wave of illegal immigrants. Perhaps nothing will pull as many crossover voters and Independents as a strong law and order stance against illegal immigration. In the general election a strong anti-illegal immigration position will be a winner.

Thompson is the only Republican conservative front runner who comes across as tough against our enemies and illegal immigration. In the end, conservative voters may come to realize that they have been drawn to a charming guy in Huckabee but he isn’t Mister Right. At that point, Thompson will be there to collect those conservative votes.

I don't know if all of this analysis is true, BUT here is what we are seeing. In Iowa, Mitt is losing support to Huck. Nationally, Rudy is losing support to Huck. Rudy and Mitt have been the front runners (from a media viewpoint anyway) and Republicans are moving away from those two for whatever reason. Huck is the beneficiary right now because: he is different and new to their attention, he has the social conservative mantle, and he speaks well. But as people get a better look at him, what will they see? I have detailed many of Huck's faults in this blog and this is beginning to come out in the press. Hopefully what we will see is a subsequent move from Huck to Fred. If so, things will look very good as Huck comes back to earth.

More on Rush's Praise of Fred

Rush posted the transcript of the short segment that he did on Fred talking with Charlie Rose regarding conservatism. By the way, I really love Fred's definition of conservatism in the second paragraph in the quote below. I have struggled with the right way to express this to people and Fred nailed it.

RUSH: Last night on Charlie Rose's show on PBS, former Senator Fred Thompson is the guest. Charlie Rose says, "You constantly say in this campaign that you're a conservative. What does that mean today?"

THOMPSON: It means things that are consistent with God's design for man. It's consistent with human nature. It's consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to err and times do terrible things, that too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.

ROSE: In all of that you didn't mention abortion, gay rights, all the things that have been part of recent presidential elections.

THOMPSON: Well, you're talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us which derive from principles.

RUSH: Now, this is just fabulous to me, this is just great. Here Charlie Rose asks Fred Thompson, "Well, what is a conservative today anyway?" So Fred gives his definition of a conservative, and Charlie says, "Well, wait a minute. I didn't hear anything about abortion, or gay rights, all the things that have been part of recent presidential elections." Here's how Fred answered that, because Charlie Rose came back and said, "Principles? What do you mean principles?"

THOMPSON: Principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that basic rights come from God and not from man. The Founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that, and that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and, you know, for example, I come to the pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know? The application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.

RUSH: I guarantee you, Charlie Rose is clueless here. None of this... He's listening to, you know, Mongolese as Fred Thompson is going through all this. (laughter) Sometimes you have to laugh at these poor, clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted, cocooned world, while thinking they are the most worldly and erudite among us.

Charlie Rose Video

Here is the video of the Charlie Rose Interview:

Rush on Fred (on Charlie Rose)

Rush comments on Fred's answer to Charlie Rose's line of questioning regarding conservatism last night. Rush is excited about Fred's answer--he really felt like Fred nailed it. He also Charlie to be clueless when he said, "you didn't say anything about abortion or gay rights ...."

More great publicity for Fred via Rush.

Fred on His First Day

Someone in South Carolina asked Fred what he would do on his first day in office. He had a great answer (look at the second video). The text is below, but the video is worth watching.

I'd walk in to the Oval Office, close the door behind me, get down on my knees and pray for guidance, and pray for the strength to do the right thing and the wisdom to know what the right thing was.

Then I'd get up and fire everybody.

The Flat Tax Works

The Monitor has written an opinion piece that lays out some evidence that the flat tax (a version of which Fred has proposed) is working and effective. The piece points out that when it the flat tax proposal was first floated in the early 1990s, one knock against it was that it had not been tried anywhere. But since that time, the idea has been tried--and successfully.

Since 1994, however, 14 countries, most of them formerly in the Soviet bloc, including Russia itself, have adopted a version of a flat-rate tax, and all of them have experienced an increase in tax compliance, a stable revenue stream, economic growth and low unemployment. Estonia, which has come closest to enacting a pure flat tax, has seen the most dramatic economic improvement.

Furthermore, the tendency among countries with a flat tax is to reduce the level of taxation. Estonia started at 26 percent, reduced it to 22 percent and plans a further reduction to 18 percent. In Macedonia, a 12 percent flat tax brought in 20 percent more revenue than projected, so they're reducing the rate to 10 percent.

...

Countries find the flat tax attractive because it promotes economic growth, gives countries seeking foreign investment a comparative advantage, and provides a steady revenue stream with little tax evasion. Maybe it's time for the U.S. to revisit the idea.

The conclusion can be drawn that the flat tax is encouraging to the economy so the revenues brought in increase in a similar way to what happens when we reduce marginal tax rates.

Media Influence

Mike Warren, a student at Vanderbilt University, has written a column talking about the liberal media trying to effect the election, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. This is a very well conceived and written paragraph:

The media’s template for the Republicans is clear: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two very electable (to use the irritating jargon) candidates, fight it out while no-name Huckabee rises above the fray for his few weeks of glory. Ron Paul is the weirdo with all that support from the pesky Internets, and Fred Thompson, as the most solidly conservative candidate, is trounced by a media that unfairly characterizes him as lazy and constantly sets him up to fail their own impossible standards. Huckabee will falter and fall by the wayside, having fulfilled his role as the distracter. Voters that flocked to Huckabee will be left to support either Giuliani or Romney only half-heartedly (when they should be supporting Thompson all along), and Republicans will go on to nominate whomever without the gusto needed to defeat the Democratic juggernaut of Hillary Clinton. Every major newspaper editorial, cable news commentator and nightly news anchor will present the situation in the same eerie formula, with comments about Republicans being “disillusioned” or some other buzzword permeating through the industry.

Fred on Education

In my previous post I noted how Fred addressed education on the Charlie Rose show last night. Going back to the 1980s, one strain of conservatism has called for the abolition of the Department of Education and the elimination of education funding. For a Federalist, I have found Fred's position on Education inconsistent until I heard him explain his position on Rose's show last night.

Well in South Carolina, Fred talked about what he sees as the solution to our education problems: parents --

"The federal government does not have a solution to children dropping out of school, to local schools choosing not to educate their children," Thompson said in a crowded gun shop in Greer.

"If that's the case, parents have got to do it. It's a hard lesson. I know every political candidate is supposed to come up with a 10-point program to solve all problems, but I'm telling you the truth. Those in this country who need help should get help. We have a social safety net. We have a lot of organizations out there that are not government organizations, that are charitable organizations, that are nonprofit organizations. Americans help each other. But at the end of the day, you cannot get around parental responsibility, you cannot get around the responsibility of the teenager, you cannot get around the responsibility of the local school board."

Thompson went on to say that he would turn No Child Left Behind into a block grant program so state and local communities could decide for themselves how to use federal dollars, and that he supports vouchers and competition to better the education system.

I think there are some specifics that could be done on the national level to encourage vouchers and competition, but this is a great statement by Fred on education.

Charlie Rose Interview

Fred is on Charlie Rose. I doubt that Rose has much of an audience, which is unfortunate because this interview is outstanding.

They started talking Iran and Iraq and Fred demonstrated a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the political situation as well as intelligence gathering.

Charlie allowed Fred to discuss his ideas of Federalism which dovetailed to Education. Fred explained that he sees education as a federal issue due to world economy and competitiveness. (I'm not sure that I completely agree here, but it does explain how he brings his Federalist position and the education program together).

They moved to the economy--the value of the dollar and tax rates/cuts. Rose brings up illegal immigration. Rose confronted Fred with a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that criticized Fred along with Mitt and Rudy. Fred defended his record on immigration and "respectively disagrees" with the WSJ on this issue.

Rose brought up McCain's position on torture. 1. Torture is not our policy 2. We obey the law 3. Any President, if it comes down to it and the lives of a lot of Americans are saved, then measures commensurate to the situation would be acceptable.

Leadership and character. Fred believes that character and integrity--he mentions Washington in this context. Favorite founder: John Adams.

What is conservative. Rose tried to get Fred onto Bush, but Fred responded, "let's talk about me." Good response. Fred uses the term repeatedly "wisdom of the ages" which goes a long way to explain his idea of conservatism (it goes a long way to explain my own definition of conservatism). Rose brought up Issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) but Fred says that is not the Principles of conservatism.

Rose asks the question of why Fred ran. Fred gave his answer of leaving the country better off for his children and grandchildren.

Excellent interview. Hopefully some video tomorrow.

Huck and Wayne Dumond

Later today Good Morning America will run a story on the link between Huckabee and Wayne Dumond. The Arkansas Times has an extensive article on the situation and is recommended reading as it is illustrative about the character and approach of Huck to crime and administration.

In brief: When Huck first became Governor of Arkansas, he was given (bad) council that Dumond had been overly punished for his crime (which was rape). Dumond was initially given life plus twenty years and Huck's predecessor had commuted the sentence to 39 years. The victim in this crime was a distant relative of Bill Clinton and it certainly appears that Huck had been advised that there was a degree of political influence in this sentence.

As a result, Huck had made a move to commute Dumond's sentence to time served. But this created a public outcry, so to get what he wanted, Huck pressured the parole board to parole Dumond. Whether or not he put forward the pressure of threatening jobs, but clearly the parole board members felt it was in their best interest (i.e. protecting the $70k per year jobs) to help the new Governor get Dumond released. They broke meeting rules; moved Dumond from one jail to another so that he could have a new hearing; they moved up his hearing date by months; with no other new information, they changed their vote from 1-4 for giving Dumond a parole to 4-1.

As a condition of his parole, Dumond had to move out of state. He moved to Misouri and in 6 weeks he killed Carol Sue Shields.

To me the lessons to be learned about Huck: 1) he doesn't always get good advise; 2) he doesn't vet that information; 3) he is willing to at least play on the edge of legitimacy to get done what he wants done; 4) after the fact he will mislead and hide what happened.

UPDATE: The video from GMA today can be found here.

Mitt Finally Gets It Right

Well Mitt has finally fired his landscaper over employing illegal aliens. Marc Ambinder summarizes:

Last year, when Mitt Romney learned that his lawn care company, Community Lawn Services, used illegal immigrants to tend to his Belmont property, he promised immediate action. That action, apparently, was just a warning.

Once again, Mitt is doing (or saying) the right thing for politically expedient reasons.

Fred Skeptical of New Intelligence Estimate

A new intelligence estimate was released today saying that Iran shut down their nuclear bomb program back in 2003 due to "international scrutiny and pressure". This is having some interesting spin right now--particularly by the Democrats who see this as a repudiation of Bush and his policies. (More about that below).

Fred said at a gun shop today that he is skeptical of this information:

"I hope that they are accurate with this assessment, but right now, I don't have the confidence in our own intelligence capabilities to make that assessment," the former Tennessee senator said after speaking to dozens of supporters at a gun shop in this early voting state. "One thing that crosses my mind is that this is information that the Iranians have put out, that they want us to kind of relax a little bit."

A couple of things to take out of this: If it is good intelligence, this is good news. At the same time, our intelligence in the middle east has proven recently to be questionable. As this is a complete turnaround on the intelligence, it should be viewed with a judicial eye.

By the way--if it turns out that this IS good intelligence, then this is a confirmation that Bush's "big stick" diplomacy actually worked in Iran as it did in Libya. If this is correct, we have strong evidence that the conservative approach to world peace is correct (i.e. peace through strength).