House of Eratosthenes

Since then, Romney has won Michigan which means we now have three Republican winners in the state primaries. There may very well be five before this is all done. And I don’t mean to imply that Fred will be one of the five…he may very well pass out of this thing after never amounting to anything more than a pressure candidate.

But you’d be well advised to read this before popping open the next New York Times screed about Abu Ghraib, or listening to the next empty-minded bitch-fest about who got kicked off Dancing With The Stars…

We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.

In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.

On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”

Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.

We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.

The question now is whether Sen. Thompson will do what he has not yet done: Take the advantages he is given by his intelligence, his principles, his political skills and this endorsement and make the best use of them.

As the primaries and debates speed by, we would like to see Sen. Thompson continue to invigorate his campaign to carry him successfully through Tsunami Tuesday and to nomination at the Republican convention.

Sen. Thompson, you suffer, like most conservatives, from the built-in problem of not being a professional politician. It’s precisely as Rush Limbaugh said of you: “The problem with Thompson is, and a little bit with me, is I’m a depth guy. I like depth. Television doesn’t reward depth. Television rewards zingers, one-liners, cutesyisms. Fred Thompson produced a brilliant 17-minute video that was on YouTube that explains everything about every issue that he cares about. It’s clear he’s thought deeply about a whole lot.”

It’s interesting to note that, with regard to whatever victories Fred has won thus far, he owes them to whatever capacity for the “zinger” he does have. And he does have a considerable capacity. Far more than whatever I have.

And that is why his success is so important. As crucial as 2008 is to the future of the country, Fred’s candidacy is more important even than that. We don’t get “depth” people who have some capacity for “zingers” just every year, you know.

He’s a balance. I think that’s what most people really want.

This is why, in my mind, Romney has won Michigian. And McCain, New Hampshire. And Huckabee, Iowa. These guys mix it up. They offer a blend, by being inconsistent. Trouble is, that inconsistency simply makes them bad candidates. Who’s to say what they’ll do when the hand comes off the Bible?

Well, nobody. And we all understand this. By supporting them, people are buying lottery tickets, hoping these inconsistent candidates will follow through on the bits & pieces of the record that one particular voter happens to like.

And then you have the “rock star” candidates — those who, to their “fans,” mean something above & beyond the record.

If the Presidency doesn’t go to Fred, I can only hope it goes to one of these “inconsistency” candidates, rather than to one of the “rock star” candidates of whom there are exactly three:

1. Barack Obama (D)
2. Ron Paul (R)
3. Hillary Clinton (D)

Those three are listed in order, by the way. Their fans are slobberingly enthused about them, but the reason for this slobbering enthusiasm has nothing — butkus — to do with positions on the issues.

I think Fred’s positions speak for most people, both Republicans and Democrats. But the thing of it is…and this continues to frustrate me…I don’t know that for a fact. We seem to have some loud, powerful, outspoken people determined to make sure that never becomes a question widely pondered.

Fred’s dismissal as a viable candidate, in the minds of some folks who’ve been known to me to be far more thoughtful about other matters, has been pretty quick. Hasty. One might say…rushed…perhaps even desperate.

But he’s a “consistent position” candidate. It seems to me, Hunter & Tancredo aside (and perhaps Edwards too), the only one in the running with a real shot at this thing.

And it is only through a “consistent position” candidate that The People can be restored to their rightful claim insofar as what control they should have over what the Government does. The “inconsistent position” candidates and “rock star” candidates, should they win, can make whatever shady back-room deals they want to make.

Update 1/19/08: Although the Hawkeye State has already cast its votes and gone home several days ago, this seventeen-minute message from Thompson does such a wonderful job of capturing the vision of his campaign that it deserves an embed here:

[…] [Discuss this article with MKFreeberg over at House of Eratosthenes…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Human Events Endorses Fred Thompson | 01/17/2008 @ 11:17
Thompson should be a runaway winner; the Dems lose for the obvious reasons, and Paul’s too worked up on stage and too poor a public speaker/debater to beat him. I’m surprised he’s not polling higher. MSM focusing on loser candidates on the Republican side and attempting to create a horserace for the Democrats? It’s looked like that previously this campaign and doesn’t seem to be abating.
- dcshiderly | 01/17/2008 @ 15:49

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Human Events Endorses Fred ThompsonThursday, January 17th, 2008

Human Events Endorses Fred Thompson
Thursday, January 17th, 2008