Posted by
Hard Right with No Apologies on Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:50:05 PM
Any thinking American (which generally excludes liberals) realizes that presidential campaigns are largely about image rather than substance. That is, candidates prepare very carefully scripted responses to expected questions and commit them to memory. These scripts are then mentally summoned when a question anywhere near the topic is posed. (Incidentally, doesn't that make you scream "Just answer the question!" at the television when you watch the so-called 'debates'?)
Hillary is a master at that. The recent revelation that her operatives plant innocent-appearing 'questioners' in the audience in order for her to receive softballs to hit out of the park should be no surprise to Hillary watchers. She conducted her entire New York senatorial campaign that way, and she's been the essence of double-speak her whole political life. The woman is totally about subtrefuge. Gee, considering her husband, what a surprise, hey?
That's why I like Fred Thompson so much. The guy appears "lived in," as if the necessity of primping for public appearances is a necessary chore. He is not slick, ant that bespeaks a basic honesty. Moreover, he speaks clearly and directly when asked a question or when presenting an op-ed.
I now have another reason to like Fred Thompson: he is the ONLY candidate to do what I and countless others have been demanding for months: come out with a program, dammit ! I absolutely loathe the smooth, always-smiling, ever-so-polished way that presidential candidates say nothing while pretending to dispense wisdom. They're so frightened of going on record with a personal set of recommendations that they run like cockroaches when the light of an opportunity is presented.
Not Fred. Listen to what "National Review," a respected conservative newsmagazine, has to say about his program:
Policy Fred
By The Editors
"Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is
the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform
Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for
increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to
achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On
these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism,
and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates
measure up to.
Thompson would borrow the best Democratic idea on Social Security, creating
investment accounts outside the Social Security system. Under this plan,
each worker would have the option of diverting 2 percent of his wages into
a 401(k)-type account, with the government adding $2.50 to every dollar
saved. These accounts would make it easier for workers, especially low-
income workers, to build up assets of their own.
Thompson has announced that, to keep Social Security solvent, he would slow
the growth of benefits. Social Security benefits are currently indexed to
wage levels. Since wages are expected to rise, initial benefit levels are
too. Thompson wouldn’t tinker with the cost-of-living adjustment (in other
words, benefits would still keep up with inflation), nor would his plan
affect any current or near retiree (it wouldn’t kick in right away).
Instead, Thompson’s plan is to eventually decouple benefits from wage
growth. This, he argues, is the most equitable way to keep Social Security
from running out of money without imposing a massive tax increase. None of
the other Republican candidates has put forward a plan that deals so
frankly with the challenges of reforming Social Security.
On immigration, Thompson rejects the notion that we must choose between
deporting millions of people and granting them citizenship. The cornerstone
of his proposal is a rejection of amnesty — because, as we learned
following the 1986 immigration reform, granting legal status to illegal
aliens before fully implementing enforcement measures encourages more
illegal immigration.
But Thompson doesn’t accept the false assertion that “no amnesty” means we
must initiate mass deportations.
Instead, he would gradually shrink the illegal population by stepping up
enforcement — ending “sanctuary cities” whose governments direct their
police departments not to enforce immigration law; cracking down on
employers who hire illegal immigrants; and completing a proposed border
fence. The other candidates say that they want to fix entitlements and
control our borders, but only Thompson has outlined specific, conservative
policies.
Thompson’s most recent proposal is a detailed plan to increase the size of
the military. Thompson told his Citadel audience that he would spend more
on defense, replace worn-down fighting vehicles, and build a “million-
member” ground force that would increase the sizes of the Army and Marine
Corps to 775,000 and 225,000, respectively. That we need a bigger military
has become almost an article of faith among the candidates for president,
Democrat and Republican. This is a welcome development; additional detailed
proposals like Thompson’s would be even more welcome.
The big news concerning Thompson this week, of course, has been the
National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of his candidacy.
Ironically, this is one area of policy where Thompson has not expressed his
views clearly. He has stated that he thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly
decided, but he hasn’t taken a position on what he thinks the states should
do about abortion if and when Roe is overturned.
It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has
offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing
immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates
to follow his lead."
That says it all, my friends. Fred Thompson is a leader. He's wise, has the courage of his convictions, and is qualified to step into the White House with a ready plan of action on the most important issues confronting America today. How can you not like the man?
Posted by Hale Meserow
November 15, 2007