Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson


Richard A. Viguerie has penned an article on Fred Thompson asking whether he should be the choice for conservatives in the upcoming presidential election. After describing Thompson’s history in politics as senator and as a lobbyist, and going through issues like McCain-Feingold Bill and the Asia fundraising scandal, his answer is a resounding no. Here are some excerpts from the article:

Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhower’s policies were “a dime store New Deal,” he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.

Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now it’s no longer a dime store New Deal—it’s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.

And what has been Fred Thompson’s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he’s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he’s said it so quietly that nobody—not just us, nobody—has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit. (emphasis mine)

For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didn’t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume it’s because that’s what he believed. (emphasis mine)

I also want to post the interesting list that the author created showing Thompson’s non-conservative history:

  • FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.
  • FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.
  • AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.
  • AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.
  • FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.
  • FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.
  • AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.
  • FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.
  • FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.
  • FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.
  • FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.
  • FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.
  • FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.
  • AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.
  • AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.
  • FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.
  • FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.
  • FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

6 responses to “Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson”

  1. You can take this one to the bank: We Conservatives need to get our acts together. While i concur that Thompson’s record is not perfect, I could post a list four times the size of the one above with things that Conservatives WOULD like. 86% American Conservative Union Voting Record folks.

    We need to get behind Thompson now. Either that, or get ready to the term “Madam President.”

  2. Thompson is definitely not the candidate we all need to get behind.

    But alas, I was hoping you would just say he was Ronald Reagan and I could close my eyes, hold my nose and vote for him.

    As it is, I will vote for Ron Paul, my conscience will be clear and I will remind myself that the it doesn’t matter all that much who sits in the oval office.

  3. And therein lies the Fred Thompson argument:

    “He’s the only one who can beat Hillary, and we hate Hillary.”

    Sorry, I heard the same thing with George W., and for the last eight years, I see nothing in the Bush presidency that makes me happy he’s there, as opposed to Gore or Kerry.

    At least if Hillary gets into office, then when she pursues the same big government, interventionist policies that Bush has followed, the Christian conservatives won’t be falling all over themselves defending her.

  4. Thompson is not the only one who can beat Hillary. Rudy can, so can Obama. And Gore will get the nomination, if he jumps in like I expect him to, next month. And if Gore beats Hillary, even Ron Paul can beat Gore.

  5. Amending my previous statement, after reading some play by play from the debate tonight, there is not a democrat that Ron Paul could not beat. They are all overblown windbags seemingly incapable of speaking plainly on the posittions they take. The only 2 republicans I have heard that do this are Thompson and Paul. You may not agree with Thompson, but it does not take the secret decoder ring to figure out where stands. Every one of the democrats require it, and I believe all but the previously mentioned republicans require the secret deoder ring as well.

    Paul

  6. The only thing worse than Bush “betraying” conservatives are the conservatives such as Richard Viguerie who for years have been Republican Party cheerleaders urging us to vote for Bush and any other candidate who is a Republican!See our Web site, please, (TheAmericanView.com) and listen to my interview of Viguerie on this topic — not a favorite subject of his, though he has made millions urging us to vote Republican and then trashing the Republican when elected. For shame..

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com