April 9, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Look, I know . . .
. . . that I shouldn't want Fred Thompson to win just because I like him on Law and Order, and also, because it would be really funny if we plucked our next president from a television set. But looking at the rest of the field, how bad a reason is that, really?
Posted by Jane Galt at April 9, 2007 8:21 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>A lot of people seem to think we do it that way already.
Posted by: Chris B on April 9, 2007 8:35 AMI suppose it might be a little silly to want Thompson to be the next president for that reason alone, but he would likely make a pretty good one.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 9, 2007 9:18 AMUnlike many other candidates Thompson has a clear and coherent set of ideas about how to govern. He is pretty solidly libertarian/conservative in that he favors free enterprise and a strong national defense and, unlike the current President, he can articulate and defend his views well.
If he were to win, the American people would have a clear choice. Do we want higher taxes and socialized medicine? Do we want to retreat from Iraq? If so then we should vote for Clinton (or Obama). Otherwise we should vote for Thompson.
The choice between Thompson and Clinton is basically the same choice Americans faced before when we voted for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter and then again over Walter Mondale.
Posted by: Isocrates on April 9, 2007 9:30 AMIsocrates puts it well. Thompson is a good candidate. His TV experience may give him a benefit, but he is a credible candidate regardless.
Posted by: Kevin P. on April 9, 2007 9:32 AMI certainly want to retreat from Iraq, so it sounds like Thompson is not the guy for me. Oh well!
Posted by: Jim Henley on April 9, 2007 9:32 AMIt's no worse than wanting a candidate to win because he or she is the son or wife of another President.
Posted by: AT on April 9, 2007 9:33 AMPerhaps it would be a good thing - if he can get elected mostly because people know him from TV, then he will not be beholden to as many interest groups and perhaps he'll actually be able to govern without pandering as much.
Of course, this can be a bad thing as well. But what the hell. I really don't like any of the other GOP candidates, and so if a GOP guy wins, I'd rather it be Thompson than any of the others. Though I'd really like the GOP just to lose. They deserve to after the damage they've done this past six years. The GOP needs to be utterly destroyed as punishment for completely abandoning anything even remotely libertarian.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief on April 9, 2007 9:37 AMBut apparently he is also 6'6". Shouldn't that be reason enough?
Posted by: Steve on April 9, 2007 9:49 AM"The GOP needs to be utterly destroyed as punishment for completely abandoning anything even remotely libertarian."-DBB
I can understand why some libertarians are discgusted with the big spending Republican Party of Bush, Delay and Hastert (as inded I am myself) but that isn't good enough reason to abandon the Republicans for the Democrats. Hillary has much enthusiasm for government control than any of the Republican candidates.
There is a good reason that the Economist described the Republican Party as an uneasy alliance between libertarians and conservatives. It might well be uneasy, but it ought to persist, since conservatives and libertarians share a mistrust of government and a special disdain for socialism. It's hard for me to see how a real libertarian could want Hillary as President.
Posted by: Isocrates on April 9, 2007 10:07 AMYou know, I like the whole concept of getting libertarian-leaning people elected because of their Hollywood/TV experience. Worked for Reagan, worked for Schwarzenegger, might just work for Fred Thompson.
Posted by: Person on April 9, 2007 10:07 AMThe Democrats at least make sure their big government is both paid for and run well (as well as government can be run). The GOP spends more, puts us in debt, and then we get incompetence for our money.
I think the GOP needs to be destroyed because if they aren't, if the GOP gets the idea they can do that and still get away with it and just float by on the notion that "well, the Democrats aren't all that libertarian either" then libertarianism in government will be dead, because the Democrats sure won't do it, and if we don't hold the GOP's feet to the fire on it, they won't either.
The GOP should be destroyed and should ONLY be voted for once it actually starts acting libertarian. If anything, they've proven that their right-wing authoritarianism makes them MORE a threat to libertarians than Democrats at their worst could be - they march in lockstep and do NO checks and balances. Democrats still did pretty aggressive oversight even with a Democrat in the white house. The GOP Congress rolled over and played dead. The GOP is too authoritarian and too efficient and weilding power to be trusted with it again until they put the libertarians back not just as tokens but IN CHARGE, with the Tom Delays and George Bushes in the party relegated to irrelevancy.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief on April 9, 2007 10:19 AMI have long contended that every presidential election since 1960 has had us electing candidates solely based on their television personna. Prior to 1960, people who voted had to make their decisions based on the subject matter of speeches and positions expressed in written interviews in newspapers, and their prior record in office.
Voters (other than machine voters) had to be aware of candidates' positions, records, and those they chose to surround themselves with, far more important issues when governing than how seriously they could stare at the camera, or how quickly they could make a serious-sounding answer to a softball (Democrat) or accusing (Republican) question from a TV talking head.
Since 1960, we've elected people who look nice, speak well, and can manage to look serious in front of a TV camera, and make few public mistakes.
Occasionally, we still get a Reagan, and avoid a Gore. Mostly, we end up with second-rates like Carter (who really ran against Nixon) and Clinton.
I hope Fred Thompson is the Reagan he appears to be.
Posted by: lpdbw on April 9, 2007 10:28 AMFred Thompson's support and association with John "I should'a been a democrat" McCain kills the deal for me.
A closer look at Thompson's record of voting during his Senate tenure should give conservatives and libertarians alike pause before
secumbing to his smooth baritone delivery.
It might well be uneasy, but it ought to persist, since conservatives and libertarians share a mistrust of government and a special disdain for socialism.
I see no evidence that actual existing conservatives have any mistrust of government whatsoever.
Posted by: Jim Henley on April 9, 2007 11:25 AMThompson cannot win. He's fat and bald. We haven't elected a bald president since Ike and that was a long time ago, before t.v. placed a great importance on appearance. He's also basically a hack lawyer/lobbyist, who happened to have another career later. Big Whoop!
Posted by: Junior on April 9, 2007 11:35 AMLibertarians should support Fred Thompson??? Are you people serious? The guy supported John McCain's censorship and gutting of the First Amendment fercrissakes. Thompson is about as far from a libertarian as one can get.
Posted by: A.S. on April 9, 2007 11:47 AMYeah, it's a pretty bad reason. Despite the fact that Mitt Romney is a habitual liar, he'd clearly make a good President. Hey, it worked for Clinton!
Posted by: dizzle on April 9, 2007 11:48 AMplease explain how romney is a habitual liar? I hope it's not the hunting incident that the media seems to be gleefully distorting. I like how he explain how he went hunting a few years back and then when he was a kid he hunted a bunch with a 22 (from the sound of it he did it all summer long), and somehow that became he only hunted twice.
I shot a shotgun when I was 12. I shot a pistol when I was 10. And in the last year I've been shooting fairly regularly. I would describe myself as someone who has been around and shot guns for a lot of my life. I could also see how someone could twist that and say I've only been shooting at 3 instances in my life.
As far as romney's other instances of deceit, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I've seen a lot of arguments for and against and the arguments against all seem to take a lot of liberties with twisting words and sentitment and making his statements seem overly broad when convienent and excessively narrow when also convienent.
I don't think Romney can win though. It's clear from the massive support of the democrats and the fools the Republicans have made of themselves we'll have 8 years of democartic leadership.
Too bad the republicans are morons, but what can you expect from a system that has become increasingly devoid of morality. And yes I realize people have been saying that for generations, and yes I also realize that for generations our society has increasingly abandoned more and more of our morals. It's gotten worse overtime and its bound to get continually worse.
Posted by: tangent on April 9, 2007 12:21 PMI can't vote for any guy who supported McCain-Feingold, just like I couldn't vote for any guy who was part of the McGovern foreign policy wing of the Democratic Party, like Kerrey.
I probably won't vote in '08, unless a sanity virus infects the Libertarian Party. There are some candidates with whom I am still unfamiliar, so I guess I could change my mind, but there certainly is no one yet who even vaguely makes me enthusiastic. Of course, this has been the norm for nearly my entire voting life, with perhaps one exception.
Posted by: Will Allen on April 9, 2007 12:39 PMJeri Kehn Thompson would make a relatively attractive first lady. I mean, if we're going to elect a president based on his looks and television personality, we may as well judge first ladies by the same criteria, right?
Once again, I think this election will be filled with candidates I have no interest in electing. It’s sad that neither party produce anybody remotely inspiring to me.
Posted by: Whit Stevens on April 9, 2007 1:14 PMI had some vague hopes that Thompson might turn out well on closer inspection, but his enthusiastic support and active lobbying for McCain-Feingold (and other campaign "reforms") are a serious problem for me. Though there is the tiny mitigating factor that at least he didn't invent the damned thing.
Posted by: Shelby on April 9, 2007 1:16 PMtangent,
Need I remind you of Romney's prior positions on abortion and gay rights?
Posted by: geez on April 9, 2007 1:17 PMThompson is credible because Thompson is unknown. As we learn more about him, who knows what people will think.
Geez,
Changing a position does not make you a habitual liar.
Posted by: Half Canadian on April 9, 2007 2:40 PMI suppose by prior positions you mean to make some of his statements overly broad and cover things he did not mean them to.
I think if he said gays should not be discrimminated against 10 years ago, that's no different than gays should not be discriminated against today. Unless of course you like to take people's words and widen them to mean that gays should be able to get married.
I don't think he ever "lied" on that one.
As far as abortion goes, that is a moralistic belief we're talking about. And it is possible, indeed, necessary for people to change their beliefs on issues such as this. That's not a "I voted for the war before I voted against it" kinda thing. From what he says he observed how a lot of respect for life re: stem cells, etc. was being degraded and he felt this was ultimately from the abortion movement. At least I think that's how he worded it and I can life with that.
Now if Mccain wanted to come out and say, "you know what, Mccain Feingold was wrong as it turns out" I wouldn't call him a liar. I'd be happy he finally came to see things my way.
Where I get worried is when I see people saying one thing and actively pursuing another. I don't see Romney saying pro life and pro marriage things while actively pursuing the other side of the spectrum. At worst you can get mad at him it seems like because his words tried to appeal to a wide variety of people rather than just being a straight ideologue and taking "the party line".
Whoever wins we can be sure they will be denounced by the other side and every possible effort will be made to ensure they accomplish nothing substantial, and if they manage to push through any legislation every effort will be made to say it was bad and wrong for the country regardless of how the nation fares anyway.
The two parties have too much at stake to really allow anything positve to come from the other side so regardless of what happens they have to continually bash and slander and oppose their enemies. Meanwhile our nations's real enemies are plotting to kill us.
Posted by: tangent on April 9, 2007 3:04 PMPeople like Tangent are why confidence swindling is such a booming business in the US. It isn't just that people are so easily deceived, it is that they so earnestly want to be deceived.
Posted by: Njorl on April 9, 2007 4:18 PMI think both sides have some decent people and both sides do whatever they can to bring down the other side. I'm not sure what that has to do with wanting to be deceived. Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that if the Democrates nominated George Washington the Republicans would get behind them? Or vice versa?
I see no evidence that actual existing conservatives have any mistrust of government whatsoever.
A Democrat in the White House could no doubt fix that problem.
And while retreating from Iraq on inauguration day would be nice, I'd prefer a candidate who's willing to build a time machine to arrange an earlier withdrawal.
Maybe they could also send the governor of California back in time to fix a few problems....
Finally, since Thompson plays a prosecutor on TV, I'd be willing to vote for him if he agrees to prosecute Bush and Cheney.
Posted by: thoreau on April 9, 2007 7:26 PMReagan replied to critics of his acting background that he did not know how anybody succeded in the presidency without that background.
The Museum of TV broadcasting puts it like this:
By 1980, the year Reagan was elected president for the first of his two terms, more people received their political information from television than from any other source. Reagan's experience as an actor on the screen and on television gave him an enormous advantage as politics moved fully into its television era. His mastery of the television medium earned for him the title, "the great communicator." He perfected the art of "going public," appealing to the American public on television to put pressure on Congress to support his policies.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/R/htmlR/reaganronal/reaganronal.htm
Posted by: dave on April 9, 2007 8:33 PMI wouldn't worry too much. The chances of a Republican winning the WH in 2008 are slim, to say the least.
Posted by: GT on April 9, 2007 9:14 PM"I'm not sure what that has to do with wanting to be deceived. Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that if the Democrates nominated George Washington the Republicans would get behind them?"
No, I'm suggesting that Mitt Romney has a nice bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
Posted by: Njorl on April 10, 2007 12:07 AMI don't know... I'm still a solid Guiliani supporter. I just LIKE the guy. Sure, he's a hot head, but on net I think he's shown that he's a solid fiscal conservative and social libertarian.
Posted by: James on April 10, 2007 8:40 AMI kind of liked Guiliani too - that is until I heard about his totalitarian, authoritarian tendencies, and then he just sounds like a nicer version of George W. Bush. The last thing we need is another authoritarian president. That's about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief on April 10, 2007 9:12 AMI don't know... I'm still a solid Guiliani supporter. I just LIKE the guy. Sure, he's a hot head, but on net I think he's shown that he's a solid fiscal conservative and social libertarian.
I’m not sure I’d agree that either of those designations apply to Mayor Giuliani. Giuliani did after all sue to get the Line Item Veto overturned and supported Cuomo in 1994 because he wanted the State to bail out NYC. As far as being a “social libertarian,” his lawsuit against the gun industry for legally selling weapons in another State shows that he’s not going to be friendly to the RTKBA community and that he thinks that if you can’t persuade a plurality of your fellow citizens to democratically bring about your preferred public policy changes (in this case more federal gun control legislation), then it’s perfectly okay to use the courts to do it.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on April 10, 2007 1:10 PMAs far as abortion goes, that is a moralistic belief we're talking about. And it is possible, indeed, necessary for people to change their beliefs on issues such as this. That's not a "I voted for the war before I voted against it" kinda thing. From what he says he observed how a lot of respect for life re: stem cells, etc. was being degraded and he felt this was ultimately from the abortion movement. At least I think that's how he worded it and I can life with that.I agree, I’d rather concentrate on winning converts than in purging heretics. Romney’s been pretty solid on the spending issue (as has McCain to his credit) and seems to regard that as the number one domestic priority. Which makes sense because aside from judicial nominations (which are a crapshoot under the best of circumstances), president’s don’t have much to do with social issues but in their role as Chief Executive they can have a tremendous effect on tens of millions of people’s lives and Romney’s managerial skills are second to none. Posted by: Thorley Winston on April 10, 2007 1:17 PM
The Democrats at least make sure their big government is both paid for and run well (as well as government can be run).
No, they don't. Absent a countervailing force, Republicans spend without taxing and Democrats spend even more while taxing. The deficit will sit pretty either way.
Posted by: anony-mouse on April 10, 2007 2:51 PM"The Democrats at least make sure their big government is both paid for and run well."
No need to listen any further.
"The Democrats at least make sure their big government is both paid for and run well."
People have short memories. The Democrats have historically been the party of corruption. This goes back to Andrew Jackson, who created modern crony politics. It continued through the progressive movement. You had the confluence of powerful unions, big city bosses, and ballot stuffing. Nixon lost to Kennedy because of Mayor Daley's "vote early and often."
Then around 1980 the tide turns a bit. In 1994 it turns a lot more. 12 years later the Republicans have entrenched political power and now the Republicans are corrupt.
See also: the liberal party recently losing power in Canada after corruption scandals in the wake of the Quebec secession movement.
Any reasonable person should conclude that power corrupts. But many Democrats have convinced themselves that Democrats are modern untouchables.
Posted by: Justin on April 11, 2007 12:23 PM"People like Tangent are why confidence swindling is such a booming business in the US."
Hey, do you have some condescension I can borrow? I'm all out.
Posted by: Adam G on April 16, 2007 4:01 PM