Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Fred-Thompson

  • A Reason Not to Vote for Huckabee

    Well, I wasn’t going to vote for [tag]Mike Huckabee[/tag] anyhow, and since I’m not Republican he’d have to get the Republican nomination before it would get on my horizon, but still here’s another reason:

    Chuck Norris has endorsed him.

    I last mentioned Chuck Norris in my post Sneaking God into Public Schools.

    On the other hand, [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag] gave what I regard as a good, thoughtful response to a question about Terri Schiavo. In general, many of the things that the media is complaining about with regard to Thompson, I regard as positives. Again, not being a Republican, I don’t have a dog in that hunt, but it’s nice to hear some thoughtful, nuanced answers. The media prefers sound bites, but the voters–and thus viewers, readers, and listeners–should demand better.

  • Another Conservative View on Thompson

    Reformed Chicks Blabbing reports that [tag]James Dobson[/tag] won’t support [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag], with the last straw apparently being his support for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage that falls well short of conservative hopes. I now see what I missed before. Thompson supports an amendment that prevents states from being forced to recognize gay marriages from other states. Social conservatives want to ban gay marriage completely.

    I would suggest that federalism is a balance, and that the “full faith and credit” clause is not something that should be done away with lightly. Since one can move freely from state to state, just what is a gay couple married in Massachusetts, for example, supposed to do if work moves them to Alabama? (I resist the suggestion that they flee the country or at least change jobs rather than make such a move!) Nonetheless I find Thompson’s approach far more rational than that of other Republicans.

  • Fred Thompson, Conservatism, and Federalism

    Joe Carter is losing some of his first love for [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag]. He says:

    Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.

    On the fundamental point, I agree with Carter. [tag]Federalism[/tag] is not essentially conservative or liberal. It’s simply a way that we divide power. But I must say that this tendency on the part of Thompson, of which I wasn’t aware, makes me much more likely to look at him myself. I’m afraid I don’t see why conservatives would be annoyed by his view on the [tag]federal marriage amendment[/tag] (I would oppose any federal amendment on this issue), and his view on the Schiavo case, insofar as I’ve read it, is right on.

    I’m an advocate of federalism, and even believe we should roll back a significant amount of the centralization that we have done thus far, and I’m somewhere center-left on social issues and lean libertarian otherwise. I guess that makes me a poster child for the “federalism is not essentially conservative” view.

    The main reason I wanted to call attention to this post, however, is because it expresses conservative goals much more clearly than many others. Some believe that one should vote for conservatives as a way to support federalism. In fact, social conservatives see their socially conservative goals as more important than the constitutional form of government and the 10th amendment in particular.

  • As Long as They’re Not Saying Anything

    . . . why should I listen?

    This story from MSNBC discusses how Fred Thompson upstaged the Republican debate. Since I’m an independent, these debates are generally of limited interest to me, though I do like to follow the candidates so as to have prior knowledge about the nominees.

    What surprised me here was that anyone would think that people might be more interested in the debate than in the new announcement. For the moment, Thompson has one advantage over everyone else: He’s new. We will all wait anxiously (well, not so much me) to see if he’ll say anything substantially different. If (I suspect “when”) he doesn’t, we can go back to being bored.

    As long as we put up with this sort of campaign with canned talking points that are rolled out in answer to every question we’ll just get more of it. We need some free-for-all presidential debates in which candidates can’t dodge the questions and in which they’ll be told outright that they didn’t answer a question when they don’t.

    OK, enough whining I think! Back to our regular programming.