Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson

Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.

Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.

It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.

We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.

They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.

Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.

The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”

Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.

We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.

Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.

Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”

Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.

Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election

Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit

Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.

The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.

Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:

"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.

Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.

A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.

Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.

It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.

I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.

This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.

Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.

Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."

Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran

Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Matador Mayor and Thompson Win GOP Debate

Although the announced candidates who participated in Wednesday's GOP debate in New Hampshire would disagree, Fred Thompson may have done himself a favor by skipping the debate and announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno instead. After all, the first seven minutes of Wednesday's debate were dedicated to him, with each candidate offering light jabs at his absence while ultimately welcoming him to the race as a formidable and charismatic candidate. Thompson aired his first official thirty second campaign ad on Fox News immediately prior to the debate, but, courtesy of Fox News' choice of questions, received seven minutes of free publicity and praise at the expense of his rivals, who surely bridled at having to talk about the qualities of a candidate who leads all but Giuliani in the polls and intentionally skipped the debate itself. The decision could not have worked out better for Thompson, who was running a strong second in GOP polls even before his official announcement Wednesday night.

After each GOP candidate debate, Capital Cloak has published an analysis of each candidate's performance and assigned a letter grade. The results from Wednesday's debate follow, in grade order:

Rudy Giuliani A-
It was interesting to observe that in Fox News' post-debate interviews of New Hampshire residents, Giuliani was criticized for over emphasizing his accomplishments as mayor of America's largest city. One alleged GOP voter expressed her desire to ask Giuliani, "What else did you do?", in reference to his qualifications to be president. Apparently she had done no research on Giuliani and missed his mention of having been the third highest official in the Justice Department, in which capacity he actively prosecuted the mafia and terrorists prior to becoming mayor, it bears repeating, of America's largest city. To nearly every question asked in the debate, Giuliani had a ready response that included documented achievements he was responsible for as mayor, and not coincidentally, those responses covered the hottest topics of the debate: illegal immigration, gun laws, government spending, high taxes, and private behavior of public officials.

The more one listens to Giuliani's responses, the more satisfying those answers become. He is a political matador who recognizes "bull" in questions or accusations and deftly avoids it by waving his red cape of mayoral experience. This was evident on a number of issues, but perhaps most clearly expressed when asked about whether the public should examine closely a candidate's private life. Giuliani, who of course is on his third marriage, offered an honest, human response by pointing out that some of the most difficult moments in his personal life occurred while he was mayor, yet those struggles did not detract from his ability to lead New York out of fiscal, crime, and image crises. It was an interesting adaptation of the concept of leadership under personal duress. He modestly mentioned that he was not running as "the perfect candidate" for president, but as an imperfect human who is also the best qualified for the job.

Although the Fox News panel attempted to portray Giuliani as weak on foreign policy through its previously mentioned question to McCain, Giuliani actually provided the best answer to the foreign policy scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. Giuliani asserted that the risk is not that Iran will attack Israel or other nations with nuclear weapons; the risk is that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists they are currently supplying with conventional weapons. He added that America must be clear in its policy against Iran nuclear capability. He drew tremendous applause for reminding viewers that Ronald Reagan pointed thousands of nuclear weapons at Soviet cities during the Cold War while negotiating arms reduction.

The Fox News post-debate interviews were critical of Giuliani and New Hampshire voters voiced their disappointment in his performance, but in comparison with his rivals on stage, Giuliani did nothing to lessen his status as the GOP front-runner.

John McCain B+
After his poor showings in prior debates and given his plummeting poll numbers, I did not expect McCain to turn in a strong performance Wednesday. It was not a matter of his specific answers or changing his message, but McCain somehow managed to come across as decisive, forceful, and better prepared than in previous debates. On nearly every issue, from illegal immigration to torture of enemy combatants, McCain's responses were indistinguishable from those he offered in other debates, but his delivery was more polished and confident and he appeared comfortable defending his record in the Senate on controversial issues. The difference in grade between Wednesday's debate and previous debates can be attributed to McCain's conscious effort to add an element of style to the substance of his responses, and as a result he was far less robotic and far more engaged. I credit McCain for delivering the best statement of the debate. When asked to address Rudy Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain praised Giuliani for providing solid management to New York City before and after 9/11, but then described his own leadership credentials in foreign policy, national security, and military issues. McCain commented, "I was once put in charge of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. I didn't manage it, I led it."

In this debate, McCain seized the optimist mantle from Mitt Romney and with nearly every statement expressed confidence in America's eventual victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror. When Romney stated that General Petraeus' surge strategy "is apparently working," McCain countered, "It is not apparently working. It IS working." These small but significant changes in style and delivery transformed McCain's standard answers on various issues into more forceful and confident statements than he had made throughout his campaign to that point. Of the candidates, McCain was one of only three who actually answered the hypothetical scenario question regarding taking military action to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. McCain made it clear that we cannot rely on the UN Security Council, with China and Russia sitting like so much dead weight on this issue, to resolve it safely. His statement that ultimately it will be the U.S. that must take action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands will likely prove prophetic.

It was his strongest performance to date, and although I disagree with his positions on illegal immigration and "torture" of enemy combatants in certain dire national survival situations, he outperformed all but one of his rivals on this occasion.


Mitt Romney B
As Fox News' Carl Cameron confirmed at the conclusion of the debate, Romney was targeted with the toughest questions of the debate as well as the highest overall number of questions asked directly to the former Massachusetts governor, allegedly because he was the New Hampshire front-runner. In these questions, Romney was accused of the following: turning a blind eye to illegal alien "sanctuary cities" in Massachusetts while hypocritically charging Giuliani with doing the same in New York; previously supporting abortion rights in Massachusetts; defending to a father of a son returning soon from two tours in Iraq his already apologized for comparison of his sons' campaign service to military service by other American sons; wanting to wiretap mosques and churches without warrants; claiming to reduce taxes while sneakily raising fees and fines in Massachusetts to make up for lost tax revenue; more eagerly advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq than Hillary Clinton.

No other candidate was forced on the defensive by the moderators than Romney, and as a result he did not manage to portray the image of poise and optimism he had exuded in the previous debates. He offered plausible explanations for each of the above-listed accusations: Governors are not responsible for mayors who do not enforce immigration laws in their own cities; candidates make hundreds of appearances and sometimes say things in ways they don't intend and apologize profusely, acknowledging that those who place their lives on the line for America are "in a league of their own"; wiretapping mosques and churches would be done only with warrants and although such surveillance is distasteful, the most fundamental right Americans have is the right to be kept alive by government diligence; denied increasing fees in Massachusetts and reiterating the numerous tax cuts he implemented in that state; advocated no timetable for troop withdrawal and asserted that such decisions should be made between the president and the generals fighting the war.

Unlike previous debates, Romney was not addressed with any questions about family values, defense of marriage, and other issues perceived as strengths of the picture-perfect family man. He graciously brushed aside post-debate comments from Fox News' Alan Colmes that implied he had been treated harshly by the panel, stating that he felt it had been fun. His body language, facial expressions, and voice inflections throughout the debate itself, however, indicated he found the orchestrated ambush unfair and unexpected. Considering the level of questions aimed at him and his efforts to address them, Romney did well enough to earn a respectable grade in this debate. He has worked long and hard in New Hampshire and likely did not lose his lead in that state's GOP polls based on his debate performance.


Sam Brownback B-
Like Mike Huckabee, Brownback was fed a steady diet of easily digestible questions geared toward his declared strengths: family values, gay marriage,and tax cuts. The only controversial question directed to Brownback was whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Brownback has addressed this issue in previous debates, including the prior debate hosted by Fox News, thus it was strange that it would be repeated once again to the same candidate. Brownback's response was soothing to conservative ears: Yes there should be an amendment because America needs more children born into wedlock with a mom and a dad "bonded together for life." While Democratic opponents would challenge that view, there was naturally nary a note of discord from his GOP debate rivals.

I also was pleased by Brownback's comment that an important result of lower taxes would be that more families could afford to live off of a single income, allowing one of the parents to be home and available to care for children. Yet, in comparison with the thorny questions tackled by Romney, Brownback was too treated to lightly with kid gloves by the moderators to merit a higher grade. It was Brownback's best performance to date, but I stand by my previous assessment that he is the GOP version of Al Gore in his delivery and voice intonations.

Mike Huckabee C+
Huckabee was the grateful beneficiary of Fox News' ambush of Romney, in that there appeared to be no difficult questions left to throw at him. The most pointed question directed specifically to Huckabee merely required him to explain his view on the "fair tax." Other softball questions lobbed to Huckabee included issues the ordained minister surely appreciated, such as abortion. To his credit, Huckabee responded well to the abortion question, citing the Arkansas Human Life Amendment as a potential model for eventual federal legislation, as the Arkansas amendment established that life begins at conception and should be protected until its natural conclusion.

Huckabee engaged in an exchange with Ron Paul over what to do about Iraq, with Paul arguing that we should withdraw because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place and Huckabee responding that regardless of how we got there, we are there and need to leave with honor and victory. Huckabee's "we bought it because we broke it" view on Iraq was anything but complimentary to the Bush administration's conduct of the war. Any exchange with Paul is guaranteed to liven a debate, and this was no exception.

Huckabee was at his worst in responding to the Iranian nuclear weapons scenario. Quite simply, he did not even attempt to answer the question about whether to use force. He sputtered for a minute about how decisions must be guided by the constitution and a leader's conscience and character. He emphasized that such scenarios illustrate why it is critical for a president to surround himself with wise people. He made no effort to explain what he would do in such a situation, leaving viewers with the impression that he does not know whether he would use force against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of its hands. Americans are not looking for indecision from its next president and that is why Huckabee remains quagmired in GOP polls.


Duncan Hunter D
After every Duncan Hunter debate performance, I hopefully expect to see a text on my screen stating, in Monty Python fashion, that "the advisers who prepared Hunter for the debate wish it to be known that they have just been sacked." Unfortunately for Hunter, no sackings have occurred. In every debate thus far, Hunter has made the same lame reference to "not that scraggly fence you see on CNN" when discussing border security and his beloved fence that he claims to have personally built near San Diego. Hunter is the epitome of a political figure who can do much good in Congress but is not destined to hold high executive office. His value appears to be in defending his party and looking out for the interests of the military. Hunter was the only candidate, including self-proclaimed military expert McCain, who could reel off from memory statistics regarding reductions of civilian casualties in the various Iraqi provinces. Hunter would make a fine Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and should limit his aspirations to that noble duty.

Hunter did issue the most effective barb to Democrats, pointing out that the while the GOP acts to remove figures like Larry Craig when they are found to be ethically challenged, Democrats make such figures chairmen of committees. Hunter was also the only candidate other than Giuliani who viewed Iran's capacity to share nuclear material with terrorist groups as the most pressing reason to take action against Iran before it produces sufficient enriched uranium to make such a scenario reality.

Ron Paul D-
Other than entertainment value as the designated foil, it is difficult to find justifiable reasons for the inclusion of Ron Paul in these debates. Still, he earned a higher grade than Tancredo because Paul is nothing if not entertaining, in a lecturing college professor of political philosophy way.

Paul's expressed Libertarian views were no different in substance or style from previous debates: 9/11 happened because the government was too involved with the airlines and should have left airline security for private companies to handle; we should not assume GOV will take care of us; People who say there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave are the same people who said it would be a cakewalk and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues; Threatening Iran is the worst possible strategy and it will make us less safe; we are only staying in Iraq now to save face; when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both; the Department of Homeland Security only worsened the existing intelligence bureaucracy that led to the failures of 9/11 and it should be disbanded; Israel can take care of itself and we should back off from our rhetoric toward Iran and talk to its leaders rather than attack without provocation.


Tom Tancredo F
Tancredo was his normal angry, bitter, pedantic self in this debate, lecturing on his two pet issues, illegal immigration and the war with Radical Islam. Americans have little patience for people who display an attitude of "I told you so," yet Tancredo long ago adopted that attitude regarding illegal immigration as the basis of his entire campaign. In consecutive debates, Tancredo has commented on his "surprise" that it took his rivals so long to realize the pressing nature of the illegal immigration problem that he has been talking about for years. "I told you so" will not win many votes, as Tancredo has discovered in his fruitless campaign.

For all his tough talk on the war against Radical Islam, Tancredo declined to answer the hypothetical scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. He made vague comments about restrictive rules of engagement for our military, and that political correctness will get us all killed, but would not address the question, which was whether he would use force against Iran under the cited circumstances.

Fox News B
More than any other network, Fox allowed the candidates at times to directly engage each other, as in the Paul-Huckabee exchange described above. Likewise, unlike other networks, Fox formulated some very pointed and controversial questions and a thorny hypothetical scenario for the candidates to address. Fox could have earned a higher grade by more equally distributing the tough questions among the candidates.

Wednesday's debate offered a timely illustration of why Fred Thompson, and potentially Al Gore, have been wise to make their cases directly to voters through electronic media rather than rely on traditional media outlets to objectively report their messages. Voter impressions of candidates are too easily manipulated by media outlets through camera angles, lighting, photo captions, article headlines, and choice of debate questions. In a ninety minute period, Fox News successfully altered voter perceptions of Mitt Romney's poise and optimistic spirit from what they were before the debate. In the high stakes game of presidential campaigning, controlling the content and presentation of a candidate's message becomes a priceless commodity. Thompson is working hard to maintain that control, while his rivals are placing their political heads in the media lion's mouth in hopes of earning applause rather than being devoured.

Technorati Tags: GOP Debate Fox News Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Ron Paul Report Cards Fred Thompson

Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz

Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.

There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.

Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.

Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction.

Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:

Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”

Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:

The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.

Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.

"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."

Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.

This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.

Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.

Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence

Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

France Doing Job Americans Won't Do

I never thought it would come to this. The more I observe America’s political state, I find myself wishing that our president and Congress were, well, more French. I do not refer to their culinary tastes or mandatory maximum 35 hour work week (that would require Congress to put in many more hours than they currently do!). Perhaps it would be more accurate to write that I wish our leaders had the courage of the newly elected and unapologetic pro-American French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. While President Bush and political opportunists in the House and Senate, such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy, attempt to sneak amnesty past the American people while insisting it is not amnesty, the French are taking steps to do what the vast majority of its citizens have demanded: Not granting legalization (amnesty) to France’s illegal immigrants and continuing to deport them at an increasing rate.

When did the French develop more backbone than Americans? Why is France becoming increasingly aware of the need to enforce its existing laws and adopting stronger new ones at the very time America’s elected officials are insisting that a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) should be provided to illegal immigrants? Is it possible that France, faced with the largest Muslim population of any European nation, realized that its very survival might depend on securing its borders and developing intelligence regarding who resides in France and why they are there? President Bush and vote pandering members of both parties claim enforcement and deportation are not realistic, yet France is stepping up its efforts to do both.

One of President Sarkozy’s first post-election moves was to establish a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which is charged with enforcing immigration laws and deporting violators. At Sarkozy’s urging, the new ministry is also concerned with helping legal immigrants better assimilate into French society, culture, and education. Sarkozy insists that immigrants learn the French language and that once legal citizenship is extended and family members from the native country seek to join the new French citizen, those family members must demonstrate French language proficiency as well. While the French require immigrants to speak the national language and integrate better with their new country, America cannot even agree that English is the national language, thus integration or assimilation are optional for immigrants, regardless of legal status.

It is a dangerous situation when law enforcement or other first responders cannot communicate with citizens in entire sections of American cities because learning English is not required for driving, shopping, obtaining government services, or citizenship. France is moving to correct this; America is afraid of offending immigrants by imposing American civilization upon them.

The Senate immigration bill put forward by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Kyl, and others late last week and praised by the president, is rightfully under assault as amnesty by another name. 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney spoke out forcefully against the bill, and was joined later by 2008 GOP expected candidate Fred Thompson in that assessment. The 2008 DNC candidates are avoiding this issue like the plague, as they cannot pander to Latino voters and appear tough on homeland security simultaneously. Romney and Thompson appear to grasp that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty or any policy that offers anything similar to it. Over time, Americans will embrace candidates who, like Sarkozy, recognize that the existence of national culture and identity are threatened by illegal immigration and legal immigration without integration.

Sarkozy’s election victory sparked rioting in French suburbs populated in large part by Muslim immigrants living on government subsidies who feared Sarkozy would follow through with his promises to slash welfare programs and make immigrants work to support themselves. When French voters see this unrest, it only assures that they will continue to ask pertinent questions of their political leaders: Where did these immigrants come from? Are they here in France legally? Why aren’t they trying to become French? Sarkozy offered the desired though controversial answers and the French elevated him to the presidency to restore order and preserve France from a perceived invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal.

Jokes about French retreat are becoming stale and do not apply to Sarkozy’s France, while America’s government is replacing France as a punch line. It is the American government that wants to retreat from Iraq, retreat from confronting near-nuclear Iran, retreat from securing its borders, retreat from establishing English as the national language, and retreat from enforcing existing deportation laws. In coming years, the French may boycott American cheese, American Airlines, and all things American because America, particularly through its elected officials, increasingly symbolizes cowardice.

Thompson Juggled Abortion Hot Potato

In the 1994 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), then-candidate for Senate Fred Thompson completed a survey detailing the policies or programs he would support if elected. As reported by the New York Sun’s political blog yesterday, NPAT has released Thompson’s survey responses for comparison with those already in the race for the 2008 GOP nomination. It should be remembered that policy positions change over time, such as the evolution of Mitt Romney’s views on abortion. These survey responses from Thompson were offered in 1994, the same year Mitt Romney bravely ran against Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just as Romney’s experiences as Governor of Massachusetts changed his views on the government’s role in abortion and preserving traditional marriage, Thompson’s experiences in the Senate and subsequent private life may have evolved since both were GOP candidates for the Senate in 1994.

Having allowed for the possibility that Thompson has changed his views on some issues since 1994, I call attention to his NPAT survey results on certain issues, particularly abortion. The NPAT web site listed the survey question on abortion and Thompson’s responses. According to the web site, candidates were asked only to identify which items they would support, not what they would oppose. Thompson’s responses on abortion were as follows:

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

0 A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

0 Other

The most glaring omission in the NPAT survey was the failure to ask the candidates whether they support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most noticeable item Thompson indicated support for was “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” These is a sweeping statement, that will not be easy for him to explain away, particularly when critics examine the items he did not express support for above.

Thompson clearly supported every item that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose abortion rather than carry a baby to term. A closer look at the items Thompson did not express support for reveals a rather radical pro-abortion position for someone who is being touted as a potential heir to Ronald Reagan conservatism:

1. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer indicated that Thompson felt women should have the choice to abort for convenience rather than as an emergency procedure used as a last resort.

2. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer was a further affirmation of a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason, whether for mere birth control convenience or for coping with the results of horrible crimes. By not supporting this item, Thompson revealed that in his mind abortion was no last resort measure but rather a fundamental female right.

3. He did not support the item “A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.” This response was truly remarkable for someone who is now hyped as a staunch conservative. The idea that two people join in a procreative act that results in the conception of a child, but that only one, the woman, has the right to determine whether that life will be terminated because she will bear the brunt of inconvenience is the epitome of selfish liberalism. The woman chose to participate in the act and the baby’s DNA is an equal contribution of man and woman. Wherein lays the supremacy of the female right to that of her husband or partner except in the liberal feminist mind? Thompson came down solely for the inviolable rights of the woman, but ignored the man and most importantly, ignored the baby’s right to life. Thompson approved of terminating a baby without telling the baby’s father. Marginalizing men is a curious position for a candidate revered for his “tough talk” and manly demeanor.

Now we move to the political hot potato juggling act performed by nearly all candidates for national office in all campaigns, the survey item: “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.” Thompson supported this item, and in doing so joined the ranks of thousands of other candidates over the years who claim that this position restores such social policy decisions to the states where they allegedly belong under the constitution. The pro-life movement will be pleased with Thompson's desire to end all federal funding of abortion and leave abortion for states to tackle. This is a very popular response, but it is the ultimate pass the buck cop out position when candidates simply do not want to deal with the topic of abortion or offend any potential voters.

What does it really mean when a candidate states that this issue of abortion should be left up to the states? Do they mean that states, with their differing ethnic and cultural traditions, should have the right to determine, on a local level, whether abortion is consistent with their values and thus legal or illegal? The chaos resulting from that situation would be inevitable. Yet it also skirts the real issue: The federal government, not state governments, is empowered to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with life listed as the first sacred, inviolable right the national government should protect. States are not encumbered by this requirement, and are thus wholly inadequate for the task of uniformly preserving life for all Americans, whether they live in liberal California or conservative Utah.

This nation witnessed the result of leaving slavery in the hands of individual states. It took a civil war and a victory by the federal government’s position to free the slaves. The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s were further evidence that leaving civil rights legislation to individual states would never achieve equality, but would rather allow permanent discrimination according to local traditions. Only when the federal government intervened by enacting civil rights legislation to overrule state governments were civil rights established and protected. Abortions will not disappear if left to individual states any more than segregated lunch counters or drinking fountains did. If the right to life is to be championed, the federal government must lead that fight. The disingenuous “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states” answer to questions of life and civil liberties is used by candidates and incumbents alike merely to dodge a controversial topic while sounding statesmanlike.

For the GOP and conservative Independents who oppose abortion, Thompson’s stated position on abortion in 1994 presents a significant obstacle to embracing him with open arms as so many appear wont to do. Romney had the opportunity to demonstrate his convictions through his veto pen as governor, leaving a clear record of pro-life activism that gives credibility to the evolution of his stance on government intervention on behalf of life. Thompson will have no such executive veto record to prove the credibility of whatever position he eventually attempts to claim once he announces his candidacy. All we know for sure is what his views were as a Senate candidate in 1994. As an effective politician, however, he will surely continue to juggle the abortion hot potato until it begins to burn and then attempt to toss it to the states.

Separation of Cinema and State Needed

Americans worship celebrity. That three word sentence might be common knowledge, but it should also be a warning sign, particularly when it comes to politics and whom we choose to lead us. The ACLU and many other groups have worked tirelessly to erect a formidable wall separating church and state, but perhaps a more useful effort might be to create more separation between cinema and state.

I am concerned about the nearly unanimous clamor for actor Fred Thompson to officially declare his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The poll numbers indicate Thompson possesses a movie star’s presence, a sound bite worthy tongue, and a country singer’s knack for stirring up patriotic fervor. All these characteristics should make me welcome his inevitable jump into the race, but I am restrained from embracing his entry by celebrity political phobia.

As a conservative who had a modest degree of professional interaction with and observation of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as a host of current and past celebrity figures, there is no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan and George Washington were exceptions rather than rules when it came to celebrity being good for politics. It was just as important that Reagan was a former actor as it was that George Washington was a former general. Had either been actively employed in their chosen professions when running for the presidency, it could have been said of them that it was merely their celebrity status that captivated the attention of voters.

Washington was the most popular American when the framers of the constitution sought an appropriate man to serve as the first president. His popularity as the victorious general of the Revolutionary War was enormous, but what endeared him to most to the general population and especially the Framers was his willingness to relinquish control of the Army and desire to retire quietly to private life after the Revolutionary War concluded. These actions cemented his reputation as a man of unquestionable integrity who sought the good of his nation more than he sought to be popular. This made him the ideal choice for a first president, and he demonstrated more integrity and humility when, after serving as president and commander in chief, he stepped aside, refusing to entertain popular pleadings that the laws be changed to allow him another term.

By the time Reagan ran for president, his movie career was decades in the past, and his own personal charisma and dedication to conservative principles ultimately won the hearts of voters. Reagan was prepared by long life experience to be the right man at the right time in the Cold War drama, and despite his landslide victories remained affable, sincere, and unaffected by adulation. In short, Reagan was not elected BECAUSE he was a former actor, he was chosen DESPITE being a former actor. The political accomplishments that ultimately led to his GOP nomination in 1980 were separate from his cinematic achievements. He truly had two careers, although clearly one certainly prepared him for the public performance aspect of the other.

However, the trend toward merging our celebrity worship culture with the selection of our leaders is becoming more commonplace and, well, popular. Instead of reluctantly turning to celebrities, it is now fashionable to nominate them simply because they are famous. The list is long and continues to grow: Sonny Bono; Clint Eastwood; Fred Grandy; Bill Bradley; Steve Largent; Tom Osborne; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Jesse Ventura; Fred Thompson, and more. While some of these men have proven capable in their elected offices, the parlaying of popularity into politics is, in the long term, a dangerous and damaging societal trend.

The desire to boost Schwarzenegger into the presidency nearly convinced members of the House and Senate to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to allow those born outside of the United States to serve as president, all because in a justified fit of pique, California voters chose to throw then Governor Gray Davis out and Schwarzenegger, adopting the slogan “The Governator” in a sickening display of celebrity, overshadowed more qualified GOP candidates like Tom McClintock who had dedicated years and decades to lowering taxes and other cherished conservative ideals.

The groundswell of support for Fred Thompson’s potential run for president in 2008 is disturbing because it is based on his celebrity more than his political convictions. Who wouldn’t want the tough-talking DA from “Law & Order” warning the Iranians to stop seeking nuclear bombs, or the hard nosed admiral from “The Hunt for Red October” staring down Putin in what appears to be a coming Cold War II? The problem is that Thompson is a former politician and current actor, the reverse of Reagan, and thus his name recognition is truly based solely on his acting career. Thompson dabbled in politics, using his movie star status to secure a Senate seat, but when he tired of the ideological battle, he retreated back to acting. Reagan never tired of the ideological battle, fighting it convincingly and publicly until only disease could silence him.

While Reagan’s former aides, such as Michael Deaver, may see in Thompson some similarities with their former boss, the comparison appears shallow at best. Conservatives should not further fuel the fire of celebrity-driven politics by choosing Thompson just because one former actor turned out to be a great choice. I never thought it possible to agree with anything spoken by “West Wing” star Martin Sheen, but, when approached by DNC officials about running for the Senate in his home state of Ohio, Sheen reportedly stated, “I’m just not qualified. You’re confusing celebrity for credibility.” Thompson is clearly more popular than any of the current GOP candidates, but in selecting our future leaders we must curb the trend to allow media popularity to become a virtue in itself. For practical purposes, liberal celebrities far outnumber conservative stars, thus embracing popularity in candidates is potentially suicidal for conservatives in the long term.

In coming months, Thompson may prove himself a worthy candidate, but the high poll numbers in advance of his candidacy may signal that conservatives value him more for his name and face recognition than substantive qualifications. Most voting in these polls have never watched him debate, or deliver a political speech, or write a piece of legislation, or argue on the Senate floor, but they have seen and heard him on TV and in movies, and that is apparently enough to convince them he will be a convincing president. Opening the floodgates of celebrities turned politicians will have a profoundly negative effect on how we govern ourselves. How many times have genuinely well qualified candidates with impeccable integrity been pushed aside because they lacked big name status and were perceived as unelectable nationally? Conservatives must make sure that Thompson is the right man for the job, not merely the best available celebrity.