Fred Thompson: First presidential candidate blogger?

Or at least the first one to do it right. Thompson has posted at RedState before. Then after Michael Moore sought a debate with Thompson over criticism for his Cuba trip for his upcoming propaganda documentary film, Sicko, Thompson quickly responded by posting a light-hearted video response while chomping a cigar. And today, Mr. Thompson has a post up at Pajamas Media:

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn’t an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together – but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.

I talked about this a bit a couple of weeks ago out in California. I talked about how I’d recently run across an old clipping of a Thomas Sowell editorial. In it, he pointed out that Wendell Willkie received the largest vote of any Republican for President when he lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. After the election, though, he never let partisanship turn him into an enemy of the administration. Instead of trashing the president, he served as Roosevelt’s emissary to Winston Churchill.

In the same editorial, Sowell also told a story about Churchill. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died, early in the Second World War, Churchill delivered his eulogy. Though Chamberlain had turned a deaf ear, for years, to all of Churchill’s warnings that could have prevented that war, Churchill praised him. “He acted with perfect sincerity,” Churchill said. “However the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor when we have done our best.”

Compare that magnanimity to what is going on in Washington and much of the Internet today. Sowell asks us, “In this day and time, can’t we have a responsible adult discussion of issues while the nation’s fate hangs in the balance in its most dangerous hour?”

Whatever one may think about Fred Thompson, he has proven to be very net savvy and is quite the communicator via digital resources.

Update: More on Thompson from Peggy Noonan over at OpinionJournal:

He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign. It's a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn't homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn't it bad that colleges don't teach military history? How about that Sarkozy--good news, isn't it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they're not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That's an unusual sound.

Hat tip to - who else? - PajamasMedia.

Turning the tables on the Associated Press

Ouch. Michelle Malkin effectively skewers AP writer Nancy Benac who published a piece critical of GOP candidates, pointing out their lack of "diversity" in appointing advisers vs. the Democratic candidates. She turns the tables on the AP pointing out that of the 22 individuals on the AP Board of Directors 19 are men, 0 are "women of color", and 1 is a "man of color". She's still looking for info on 2 more members. Plenty of photos over at her site.

McCain improves

From Bill Bradley's New West Notes:

With a lead in Nevada, a statistical tie in California, and a spirited performance at the first Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library outside Los Angeles earlier this month, Arizona Senator John McCain looks like the first comeback candidate of the campaign.

And he thinks Giuliani could be in trouble:

While most have thought that McCain is the candidate in trouble, it is actually Giuliani. He has not developed beyond his strong opening burst in February, and has slid sharply in most national polls since then. Little more than a month ago, he had a clear lead in Nevada. In this latest poll, he is fourth, albeit within a half-dozen points of the leader, McCain. His fundraising in the first quarter was strong, but no stronger than that of the third place Democrat, John Edwards. McCain, who seemed hyper in the begininng, delivered an effective performance at the Reagan Library, but Giuliani tended to fade into the woodwork, impressing only with a remarkably diffident answer on the fate of Roe v. Wade. This led him to refocus his campaign on his historical pro-choice stance, a risky move in the Republican primaries, especially the early ones.

Are the Democrats doomed?

Larry Kudlow seems to think so:

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate wants to undermine the global war against jihadist terrorism -- wherever it may be, and especially in Iraq. The Democrats see a civil war in Iraq, where the Republicans view a growing al-Qaida threat. And while Republicans talk about significantly increasing the defense budget and expanding American force levels for all the armed services, the Democrats are hoping for some sort of Iraqi peace dividend upon immediate withdrawal -- one that can be re-channeled into higher domestic social spending.

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also wants to raise taxes on the rich and roll back President Bush's tax cuts. The Republicans, however, understand that those tax cuts have propelled economic growth and contributed to a stock market boom. And they recognize that Bush's Goldilocks bull-market economy -- which I call the greatest story never told -- relies on extending the investor tax cuts and perhaps even moving forward with a flat tax or national sales tax.

Finally, to a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also has it in for corporate America. The Democrats discuss various punishments for business -- especially oil companies, but also drug, utility and insurance firms. Not so for the Republicans, who talk about helping businesses and promoting entrepreneurship in our successful free-enterprise economy.

What the media missed.

Fred Thompson takes note of a few issues the media has missed in its coverage of George Tenet and his newly released book:

On the issue of al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq, for example, Tenet said that the CIA had proof of al Qaeda contact with Saddam’s regime; that the regime had provided safe haven for al Qaeda operatives and that Saddam had provided training assistance for al Qaeda terrorists. He went on to say that the CIA had no proof that the relationship was operational or that they had any ongoing working relationship — that it could have been that each side was just using the other. Maybe my recollection is faulty on this, but that doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with what folks in the administration said. In other words, there was clearly contact and a relationship, but no one knew exactly what it meant.

On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, although Iraq undoubtedly had such weapons in the past, Tenet acknowledges that everybody got it wrong as to whether they would have them at the time of the invasion. On the nuclear issue, he said that the CIA thought that Saddam was five to seven years away from a nuclear capability — unless he was able to obtain fissile material from another source.

"...conjure up the image of 40 or 50 thousand Muslim mothers smiling into the faces of healthy babies."

Fred Thompson notes some very good news on women's access to health care and infant mortality rates in Afghanistan, and points out that none of this would have been possible without the help of U.S. and Coalition soldiers.

A new study from Johns Hopkins University indicates that, since the Taliban was ousted five years ago, Afghan infant-mortality rates have improved dramatically. Every year, more than 40,000 babies live that would have died under Islamofascist tyranny — and the statistics are still improving. The main reason, according to the study, is improved women’s access to medical care.

Some people, including World Bank health specialists, say infant-mortality rates have improved far more than the Johns Hopkins study shows — because the data used is several years old. We know, for example, that the number of Afghan children who are getting vaccinations has doubled and redoubled in just the last few years. Similarly, the number of pregnant women receiving pre-natal care went up six-fold between 2003 and 2006.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Romney's government health care disaster

I haven't had time to digest all the feedback and commentary on yesterday's Republican candidates debate, but from many accounts it sounds like Mitt Romney did the best, or at least looked and sounded presidential. I think Romney is a polished politician and very professional and so far sounds like he is running a smart campaign. As an Independent I won't be participating in the primary, but if I was I would not be voting for him, nor will I vote for him for President. And one of those reasons is because I am very uncomfortable with his eager embrace of government controlled health care.

This morning Cato-at-Liberty reminds us of some of the elements of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts:

Imposes an unprecedented individual mandate, requiring everyone in Massachusetts to purchase a government-designated insurance product or face thousands of dollars in tax penalties.

Significantly increased Medicaid eligibility and provided taxpayer-funded subsidies for a family of four earning as much as $62,000 year, effectively extending welfare well into the middle class.

Creates a Hillary Clinton managed-competition-style regulatory authority called the Massachusetts Health Care Connector. This new regulatory body has already mandated that every health care policy sold in the state must cover prescription drugs and has outlawed policies with deductibles of more than $2,000.

Imposes a penalty on businesses that do not provide health insurance to their employees (although in fairness, this provision was enacted over Governor Romney’s veto.)

Greatly expands the state’s health care bureaucracy, creating at least 10 new boards, commissions, and other institutions to study and regulate health care.

The folks at Cato-at-Liberty have a lot more on Romney-care here, here, and here. There is a health care problem in this country, but universal, government sponsored or controlled health care is not the answer.

Powerline's candidates forum

This is pretty cool.

The candidates for the Republican presidential nomination engage with you in these special Power Line forums.

Interestingly, McCain has the largest number of topics, currently at 14.

Fred Thompson on criticism of the U.S. from abroad

Via NRO. Key line:

So I wouldn’t worry too much about the criticisms we receive. We make mistakes and at times the “carping” may even be on target, but it seems to me that we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.

Ouch:

We’re also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there’s a world war going on out there and they need to pick a side — the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let’s be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Tivo-blogging the Democratic debate

Ann Althouse Tivo-blogs the Democratic candidates debate so you don't have to. Part I is here. Part II is here. Here are some key excerpts I found interesting:

Clinton on the Iraq war vote:

We go back to Clinton, because she was attacked (though Edwards tried to act like it wasn't an attack). She says she takes "responsibility" for her vote and that she would not have voted as she did if she knew what she knows now. The real question, she says -- correctly! -- is "what do we do now?" But then she runs Bush down for "stubbornly" refusing to accede to the "will of the American people," which makes me wish I could ask her whether she thinks the role of the President is to adopt the military strategy that the polls show the people preferring (which would be completely incompetent).

Richardson on troop funding:

Richardson is asked if he would fund the troops if he were in Congress. He says "no." The war is a "disaster." He would "withdraw all of our troops" by the end of the year. But he'd apply "intensive diplomacy" that would have the three religious factions working out their problems. He'd have a "security conference" that would include Iran and Syria. And he'd have other countries take over the reconstruction and security. Okaaaay. He's for magic. Great.

Clinton, when asked about Giuliani's statement that "America will be safer with a Republican president", gives an answer that blames the current President for not doing enough. Althouse responds with:

There is absolutely nothing there about why she would do a better job as the next President, and we were just reminded of Giuliani. Who do you want to trust, Clinton or Giuliani? That's the question. She gives not one shred of a reason here to go with her. Is there some way she would secure our borders and ports better than he would? Picture her standing at a debate next to Giuliani a year and a half from now. That's what you ought to do if you're trying to pick the best Democratic candidate. Is she the one you Democrats want standing there?

Althouse points out what I would consider the most important part of the debate:

Let's read something important. Obama is asked "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas" if there were another attack on two American cities and we knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that al Qaida did it...

Go to Althouse to read the full responses, too much to excerpt over here, but I liked Ann's comments on their replies:

Obama:

The first thing he thinks of is Katrina. Bush failed there, don't you know. Think fast, Senator. It's another 9/11! What is the military response? Show us you can think like a Commander in Chief...

Edwards:

So, be strong. But mainly just try very hard to figure out how they did it and how we can defend against the next attack. His idea seems to be about winning the hearts of the next generation. How do you fight the terrorists? Why not make them love us so they won't want to be terrorists anymore? Surely, if they see the Democrats have brought their new tools into the White House, they'll feel the love.

Clinton:

Attack! Destroy! Thank God, one of them is willing to say it. Hillary wins.

Richardson:

That beats Hillary. Richardson is my favorite of the Democrats. And Obama and Edwards are unacceptable.

All emphasis mine.

Read the whole thing over at Althouse.

John McCain officially announces he is running for President

I'm not a big John McCain fan, but this part of his speech I like:

We all know the war in Iraq has not gone well. We have made mistakes and we have paid grievously for them. We have changed the strategy that failed us, and we have begun to make a little progress. But in the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. And we must never repeat that mistake again.

Emphasis mine.

Fred Thompson: tough words on gun control

From The Fred Thompson Report:

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

He also has this valid point:

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Guns in the hands of Thai citizens have also served to curb terrorist attacks in a plan that has the backing of the Queen:

Soon after the beheading, the residents of Lampaya, about 800 kilometers, or 500 miles, south of Bangkok, banded together, bought 150 rifles, received weapons training from a program initiated by Thailand's Queen Sirikit, and began a 24-hour patrol system.

As a result, while surrounding villages have had about 20 killings by insurgents since the beginning of the year, the residents of Lampaya proudly report that they have had none.

Fred Thompson on taxes

Over at the WSJ:

The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Watching out for the little guy

Just caught this floating around the blogsphere, and all I gotta say is, John Edwards really does look after numero uno. 28,000 square feet? Wow. And I'm living in a 650 Sq foot. 3 Bed Apartment. Of course, there's the rumours regarding a few shady tax breaks as well.