Some have tried to make the case. Indeed, the two men have more in common than sharing the same home town of Hope Arkansas.

Though both have held the job of Arkansas' governor, they came to it from different directions. Clinton had been that state's attorney general, while Huckabee had been lieutenant governor, moving up to the Governor's Mansion after his predecessor, Jim Guy Tucker, was forced to resign the governorship because he was convicted of a felony in the Whitewater scandal.

Both have gotten campaign advice from Dick Morris, who, according to Huckabee is a "personal friend." Morris consulted on his campaigns in 1993 and 1994, in which Huckabee ran as a moderate.

There are those who believe that the two former Natural State governors are alike in the sense that both are excellent campaigners who have distorted their records and pretend to be something they are not. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a self-confessed former Huckabee fan, warns:

"He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal. Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

There are other similarities. Both are Southern populists. Huckabee certainly sounded Clintonesque in the GOP debate in Detroit, where he said:

"I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it's not doing so well," he said. "The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs. And that's barely paying the rent."

"And you know what else?" Huckabee said. "They don't think that they can afford for their kids to go to college. They're pretty sure they're not going to be able to afford health insurance."

Both have ethical baggage. Clinton's is familiar, Huckabee's less well-known:

His campaign ascendancy has drawn media attention to longstanding arguments with the Arkansas Ethics Commission over the propriety of gifts he received as governor.

But there are significant differences, too. With Huckabee, there are no bimbo eruptions. On the contrary, the former Baptist preacher is conservative on social issues, if not on economic ones. But he's a "compassionate" socon, more so than George W. Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton and his "compassionate liberalism," which he claimed allowed him to "feel our pain," The Huck actually feels it.

Despite his Arkansas legacy of tax increases, Huckabee has signed on to Grover Norquist's ultimatum pledge not to raise taxes, an act of political theater that even Billy Jeff was too shrewd to engage in.

Mike Huckabee is no Bill Clinton, and his penchant for nanny statism make him the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan, whose belief in small-government federalism was among his first principles.

No, Huckabee reminds me less of Clinton than he does another former president - Jimmy Carter. Carter was a Sunday school teacher, Huckabee a preacher - both in the Baptist denomination.

Both have been critical of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Huckabee:

"I have... come to understand that from a perspective of the way the world looks at us, GITMO has become a symbol of what a lot of people are angry about, and whatever value it has, it’s being lost by the ill-will that it has generated. So rather than continuing something that is doing us more harm than good, there’re other places to keep these detainees. I want to make clear. Closing Guantanamo is not letting these detainees loose. It’s simply putting them in a different location and not allowing this symbol, which has become a part of Guantanamo, to further damage the prestige of the United States."

Carter:

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A...

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think it's wrong."

Both seem obsessed with their shared perception of America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world. Huckabee on America's foreign relations:

"I would like us to restore relationships and rebuild the kind of positive attitudes people have historically had toward our nation and do that by showing the kind of respect that other nations would want and deserve," he said...

Huckabee also said that nations deserve the same kind of treatment that individuals do. "You treat others the way you’d like to be treated," he said. "That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries."

Carter:

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, [the Bush] administration has been the worst in history," Mr. Carter, 82, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said in a telephone interview with The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette from the Carter Center in Atlanta...

He characterized one of the defenses of the Bush administration in America and worldwide as "O.K., we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us."

Ironically, Huckabee, who once cancelled a scheduled appearance at a Baptist conference organized by Jimmy Carter over these same comments by the former president about the Bush administration, is more akin to the peanut farmer than he would like to admit.

Though it galls me to quote George Will, his assessment of the Huckster is right on target and sounds a lot like Carter:

Huckabee combines pure moralism with incoherent populism...

To paraphrase Pogo, "Huck met the enemy, and it was himself."

Huckabee promises to be as compassionate, uninformed, unrealistic and moralistic as the Jimmy Carter who drove our nation into a state of "malaise." He does not possess the backbone that the United States and its allies need in a leader of the free world in these perilous times.

- JP

I just love it when the drive-by media fires a shot at a conservative and winds up shooting itself in the foot. Such is the case with CNN's latest attempted smear of Fred Thompson:

Fred Thompson has made a point of visiting gun shops and gun shows while hitting the campaign trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina, usually with camera crews in tow.

But Thompson said Wednesday he does not have a hunting license, nor has be been hunting recently.

"It's been too long, it's been too long," Thompson told CNN Wednesday.

Asked if he has a hunting license, Thompson said he currently does not.

Leave it to the Clinton News Network to have the point of the Second Amendment soar over its head. The network's South Carolina producer Peter Hamby, who authored the hit piece, has not the first clue.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of American citizens to arm themselves against tyranny. The founders saw the most likely potential source of that tyranny to be the federal government. Their experience with His Majesty King George's government had made them wary of what even the government they were laboring to establish could possibly become at some point in the future. So our founding fathers had the foresight to build in some safeguards against that worst-case scenario. They wrote an American Constitution which only delegated certain limited powers to the federal government and reserved all others to the people and to the states. Knowing that one of the first acts of an oppresive regime is to disarm its citizens to prevent them from resisting, the founders went one step further and explicitly guaranteed the people the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to that Constitution.

Fred Thompson and nearly 100 million American gun owners understand this. CNN and the collectivist Left do not.

A salute to Warner Todd Huston for being the first to take Hamby and CNN to task for their miserably failed attempt at pulling a "gotcha" on Thompson with this post on NewsBusters:

CNN has posted a Political Ticker entry trying to create a "gotcha" on 2nd Amendment supporter, Fred Thompson. CNN's South Carolina Producer Peter Hamby has breathlessly announced that "Thompson does not have hunting license," but the question is... so what? Do you HAVE to own a hunting license to be for the 2nd Amendment? Does Fred not owning a hunting license disqualify him as a gun rights advocate? Well, it appears that CNN imagines that you are illegitimate if you claim to support the 2nd Amendment yet you don't have a valid hunting license. What we end up with here is proof that CNN doesn't have a clue what it means to own a gun, what it means to support gun rights, nor do they understand the 2nd Amendment itself, or that there are various "gun cultures" and levels of interest and usage for guns in the United States.

Huston lists several aspects of the gun culture and drives home the point that they don't necessarily involve the hunting of wild game:

Now, anyone interested in the Constitution, history, guns as a hobby, guns as historical artifacts, target shooting, Civil War and Revolutionary War reenacting, or Cowboy shooting will know right away that CNN's gotcha is a meaningless point to flog. All those interested in the gun hobbies and causes mentioned above have no necessary connection to hunting whatsoever. Folks who like target shooting, reenacting or history might also be hunters, but many are not. Yet they are ALL for 2nd Amendment rights, hunting or no.

Add to that list the most important reasons to own guns: protecting one's self, liberty, loved ones and property from all those who would harbor nefarious designs on them.

If there's anyone out there who still doubts CNN's liberal agenda and determination to cast a negative light on true conservatives at any opportunity, this attempted smear job targeting Fred Thompson should put such doubts to rest.

- JP

Your take on whether there is merit to Fred Thompson's charge that Fox News is biased against his campaign may depend on which candidate you are backing in the race for the 2008 presidential nomination.

If you're Fred-friendly, like A. Renee Daley at Falcons for Fred, Fox's bias is obvious, and Fred gave you reason to cheer when he called them out on it:

Wallace's exchange with Fred Thompson shows us how juvenile Fox News really is.

That's why I refer to it as the Fox Neo-Con Channel. Pro-Giuliani, and Anti-Conservative. Fair and balanced it's not.

If you're Fred-hostile and supporting one of his opponents, like Giuliani shill Jennifer Rubin of American Spectator's AmSpec blog, Fred was wrong (like he always is, eh Jennifer?):

I and others are commenting on Thompson's tantrum at/on Fox. With Hillary's attack on Tim Russert and the general griping about debate moderators I think we have set a record in this primary season for candidates who whine about the media.

Notice Rubin's use of the pejoratives "tantrum" and "whine." Her bias against Fred is rarely stated in such an obvious manner. She's usually much more subtle with her little put-downs, but she's almost always critical of Thompson. When Rubin writes about Rudy, on the other hand, she has to constrain herself to keep from gushing:

A lot of political definition is determined by your friends and by your enemies. Some politicians ask to be judged by their friends. Rudy is just as happy to be judged by his enemies: Arafat, the ACLU, the New York Times and Al Sharpton. I think a dichotomized world view with good and bad guys is what underlies much of his appeal -- and drives his enemies to distraction.

If you are Rick Moran, you're fair and balanced, like Fox News pretends to be. Rick has been both critical and lauditory of Fred's campaign, in each case when Team Thompson deserved it. In this case, he understands what Fred was talking about:

Thompson has a point. While his campaign has been universally criticized for gaffes and missteps early on, it is equally clear Thompson has righted the ship in recent weeks and is starting to generate some momentum.

His policy papers on social security and immigration have been widely praised on the right as being well rounded, thoughtful, and meaty. His tone on the stump has changed as well as he as begun to criticize both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for what he calls their "fake" conservatism.

The media, including Fox, have focused largely on the inside the beltway criticism of the campaign and the candidate himself while ignoring the fact that despite the bad start he is still polling in second place nationally among Republicans.

At the very least, this criticism of Fox shows Thompson to have some fire in the belly - something the media has criticized him for lacking. It also shows an independent streak that not too many candidates have demonstrated.

Even some supporters of Fred Thompson's opponents have sided with Fred on this. Right Wing News' John Hawkins has been honest almost to a fault about the fact that he would like nothing better than to see Duncan Hunter win the nomination, but he is equally honest about the remoteness of any chance of that happening. Here's his take on what Fred said:

Is this true? In my opinion, absolutely. In fact, I've had people complain to me privately about the way that Fox News attacks Fred Thompson...

Many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans, including the ones at Fox, have come across as being very hostile to Fred Thompson. Maybe that's because they've succumbed to the same cultural forces that have convinced Republicans in Congress that you have to abandon your conservative principles to win elections. Maybe they're just biased towards Northeastern pols like Romney and Giuliani, because they're living in that part of the country. Maybe most of them had already picked their candidates before Fred got in the race and they're reluctant to change horse mid-stream. But, there has definitely been a weird disconnect between the conservative punditocracy and the conservative grassroots on Fred Thompson. The punditocracy doesn't like him, while he seems to be the single most popular candidate by a good ways amongst conservative activists.

As far as Fred's campaign goes, he's 2nd in national polls, ahead of Romney, third in the first primary in Iowa, ahead of Giuliani, tied for 1st place in South Carolina with Romney, and is likely to be the top Republican candidate in fund raising during the 4th quarter of this year. Fox can sneer at Thompson if they like, but he is in the thick of the race and has a real shot to win the nomination. Will he win? I don't know, but he certainly deserves a lot better than he has gotten from Fox and most of the other beltway insiders in DC.

If you're Fred Thompson or one of his strategists, what do you do about this? There are two obvious choices. Either publicly ignore it and let the captive punditocracy and drive-by media continue to walk all over your campaign, or take 'em on. Team Fred has obviously decided on the latter course. It's not without its risks, of course. Your opponents' captive pundits will try to use it against you, as Rubin is doing on Rudy's behalf. But you really have no other choice if you want to win the nomination, save the Republican party from itself and save the country from the Democrat socialists like Sen. Clinton, who has declared, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Jay Cost may have been the first one to see this coming. About a month ago, in his excellent essay "Thompson Goes Electric..." on Real Clear Politics, he wrote:

There are two types of rules in the world. On the one hand, there are real rules. These are the rules that you need to follow, or you will be in big trouble. Stay in school is one of them. You can't do much without a high school diploma - so that is a real rule. On the other hand, there are fake rules. These are rules that most people follow because they think there are negative consequences for disobedience, but actually there are not. In fact, the ones who break the fake rules are often celebrated as trail blazers...

If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.

I think Thompson might be breaking what really are fake rules. As I mentioned above - the perpetual campaign is only a means to the real campaign. You play the game by the rules of the media to earn your way into the real contest. But there may be other ways to get to the real campaign. If there are, the media's rules are indeed fake. There are no consequences to breaking them. If you find another way into the real campaign, you can break them all you like.

This is what Thompson seems to be doing...

I think Thompson has assessed that breaking these rules could win him support. People outside the Beltway, whose daily lives are not regimented by the news cycle, appreciate that the perpetual campaign has reached a point of asininity. Accordingly, a candidate could win supporters over in the real campaign by claiming that he ignored all of these rules, which essentially mandate twenty-two months of nonstop campaigning. This is a twist on running against Washington. It is running against the Washington press corps.* A Republican candidate can do this all the more. After all, the perpetual campaign is mediated by the press, which conservatives loathe. Instead of saying that he broke the media's rules, a candidate instead can say that he broke the Drive By Media's rules. That is a great way to win conservatives over: run against the Drive By's. *(Emphasis mine - JP)

Jennifer Rubin doesn't get this. She wants Fred Thompson to play by the biased media's rules, which are printed on a deck of cards stacked in favor of a Rudy Giuliani v. Hillary Clinton (all New York, all the time) general election:

There are certain fixed rules in politics and one is: if you are complaining about your coverage and media treatment you are losing. Sometimes the complaint is justified... and sometimes it isn't, but complaining about it never works.

I think it will work. The GOP primaries, after all, are dominated by conservatives, and conservatives know all about media bias. They are also perceptive enough to realize that Fox News is not a conservative media outlet. In times past, it had been perceptively less liberal than its competitors. But FNC has been tacking to the left for the last year or so, ever since the time that Rudy Giuliani announced his bid to run for the White House. Purely coincidence, I'm shurrr. Fox and its competition all want a liberal president in 2008. Fox's only difference with its rivals is that it wants a Republican liberal, rather than a Democrat liberal, as preferred by the other drive-bys.

Our friends at Blogs for Fred Thompson get it:

Make no mistake- Fred is running not only against the tide of the mainstream media, but he's also running against the "conservative" punditry and Fox News.

As I said, I think this strategy will work for Fred's team. Conservatives will take to a conservative candidate who stands up to and fights the drive-by media like a Golden Retriever takes to a lake full of waterfowl.

- JP

"My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses." - Source

"In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a [Contract With America] like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things which the party said, 'These are the thing's we're going to do.' I think that's a mistake." - Source

"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." - Source

“I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican Party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake." - Source

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them. I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety." - Source

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - Source

"I don't think [The Brady Bill's mandated waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect." - Source

"I don't line up with the NRA." - Source

"I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." - Source

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have, since the time when my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." - Source

"I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available." - Source

"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." - Source

"All people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." - Source

- JP

"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal. I do that in spite of my own personal reservations... But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it." - Source

"I never called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade." - Source

“No, I have not supported [a ban on partial-birth abortions], and I don’t see my position on that changing.” - Source

"I would vote to preserve the option [to have partial birth abortions] for women." - Source

"I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights." - Source

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." - Source

"I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them." - Source

"On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths." - Source

"Hello, dear. I`m talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello? I love you, and I`ll give you a call as soon as I`m finished, OK? OK. Have a safe trip. Bye-bye." - Source

"The quote that I have from the time I was mayor is that the conditions in New York and the things you do in New York about guns may be different than Texas. And the reality is I've always looked at it that way." - Source

"If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair." - Source

"[School vouchers] would bleed the public schools of needed funds [and be] a terrible mistake." - Source

"Oh, you dirty boy! Donald, I thought you were a gentleman." - Source

[Nelson Rockefeller represented] "a tradition in the Republican party I’ve worked hard to rekindle — the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." - Source

[Barry Goldwater was an] "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man." - Source

"I do not look to see what the catechism of conservatism says about how to solve a problem." - Source

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Source

"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, ‘Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." - Source

"There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader." - Source

- JP

Duncan Hunter is a good man, a true patriot and a very conservative Republican, although not a small-government, new federalist one. He's still a much better choice than Rudy McRombee, hands down.

I'm a Fred Thompson supporter, but I nevertheless like and admire Hunter. Oh sure, I have a few nits to pick with the man. His less than sterling attendance record in the U.S. House is one. His voting record on fiscal issues is another. Finally, his opposition to free trade is a non-starter for me, although those with a more populist bent will see it as a big plus. Duncan Hunter may have more expertise on military maters than anyone else in Washington, D.C. That's why I believe he would be an outstanding SECDEF in a Fred Thompson administration.

I'm not exactly sure why, despite being in the race for the GOP presidential nomination for nearly a year, Hunter has failed to gain traction as a candidate. Perhaps his campaign has not served him well. Perhaps the media hasn't given him enough "face time." Or perhaps some of his more zealous backers are having the opposite effect on his campaign than the one they desire.

That's why this one goes out to those Duncan Hunter supporters who have felt the need to bash Fred Thompson on the political discussion forums, especially on FRee Republic and more especially on the Fred Thompson threads there:

Blame Fred Thompson
(to the tune of Blame Canada)

Times have changed
FReepers are getting worse
They won’t obey their betters
They want to put Thompson first!
Should we blame Club for Growth?
Or blame NTU?
Or should we blame Tanc and the Huckster too?
No, blame Fred Thompson
Blame Fred Thompson
With all their beady little eyes
Those Fredheads are so full of lies
Blame Fred Thompson
Blame Fred Thompson
We need to form a full assault
It’s all Fred Thompson’s fault!
Don’t blame me
For Duncan’s not made a dent
He’s been running nearly a year
And he’s only got four percent!
And our guy Hunter
Should be on everyone’s minds
But he’s lagging so far behind!
Well, blame Fred Thompson
Blame Fred Thompson

It seems that everything’s gone wrong
Since Fred Thompson came along
Blame Fred Thompson
Blame Fred Thompson
He’s not even a real conservative anyway
Duncan could’ve been a contender ahead in the race,
Instead nobody even recognizes his face
Should we blame the candidate?
Should we blame his campaign?
Or the donors who shunned him in vain?
Heck no!
Blame Fred Thompson
Blame Fred Thompson

With his federalist hullabaloo
And that bi*ch Matalin too
Blame Fred Thompson
Shame on Fred Thompson
For...
His race we must stop
His dash we must bash
His campaign and run
Must all be undone
We must blame him and cause a FReeper fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!

SABAZZ!

My apologies to the writers of South Park.

- JP

Mitt Romney, in his speech to the Family Research Council's Values Voters summit recently, told the assembled faithful:

I want to build a stronger military, a stronger economy, and stronger families. I call these the three legs of the Republican stool. These three unite the coalition of conservatives that Ronald Reagan championed—defense conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives.

We won’t win the White House with only 2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3. Republicans win the White House by motivating all 3 parts of our coalition to carry us to victory.

Unfortunately for movement conservatives, that three-legged stool tips and falls over when its occupant leans too far in any direction. That's why the great majority of stools, chairs, tables, etc. have four legs, not three. It makes for a more stable platform. The three-legged stool also becomes much more unsteady if one of the legs is cut even a little shorter than the other two. This renders it just about useless.

For a long time, there were indeed three pillars of the Republican Party, but along came the big government, big spending neocons who had lost their sense of balance somewhere along the way. At first they cut just a little off of the economic leg of the stool. Then they cut a little more, and the stool was left so tilted that it was no longer useful. The two pieces they sawed off of the fiscal leg are lower spending and smaller government. Virtually all that remains of that orginal economic leg is lower taxes. What are movement conservatives to do about this? Should we try to pick up the pieces and glue them back on the leg?

Perhaps it would be a better idea to modify the stool so that it has four legs. We can put a new fiscal leg on the stool cut to the length of the original by putting more emphasis on lower spending. And we can invite libertarian conservatives back into the fold to help us install the fourth leg. We can call it federalism or small government or whatever we want to. Libertarian conservatives and federalists have for too long been given the short leg of the old three-legged Republican stool, and the coalition needs both of these essential parts to strengthen the whole.

The neocons and the single-issue socons have made a mess out of Ronald Reagan's coalition of conservatives. By focusing only on their own myopic views of what conservatism should mean, they have failed to show respect for the other key members of the coalition. The neocons have done this by attempting to redefine economic conservatism by ignoring the need to reduce government spending at the federal lovel. The socons have done so by virtually ignoring both economic conservatves and small government conservatives altogether. The socons have chased away many of the libertarian conservatives, and federalists have, since Reagan's death been put in the attic like some crazy aunt or uncle.

Ronald Wilson Reagan considered federalism to be a bedrock "first principle", and he committed himself to revitalizing that principle:

Of all his accomplishments, perhaps the most profound part of the Reagan legacy -- and we hope the most enduring -- was President Reagan's commitment to our nation's Constitution and its explication of federalism, though that foundation had been neglected for most of the 20th century. With the constitutional aberrations of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society well-embedded in the nation's collective consciousness, Reagan's commitment to constitutionally limited government and the pre-eminence of the states in the American system envisioned by the Founders came as a much-needed shock to the system.

Issued on 26 October 1987, President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 on federalism speaks directly to the point. Indicating federalism's "fundamental principles," Reagan wrote as crisply and cogently as Madison, Hamilton or Jay ever did: "Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government. ... The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. ... All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people."

Unlike many of his political contemporaries, Reagan understood that the fundamental premise of American society, and that society's greatness, did not reside in, nor was it regulated by, Washington. Instead, he understood that "The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives."

Likewise, the President wrote, "In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly." Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Reagan added that the States are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."

Never known for his integrity, constitutional or otherwise, Bill Clinton revoked EO 12612 in 1998 and replaced it with EO 13083, which largely re-justified the excessive unconstitutional role the federal government has assumed since the time of Franklin Roosevelt.

Although Reagan's executive order was re-established under the Bush administration, the President has mostly ignored it, allowing the federal leviathan to grow even larger than it did under Clinton.

The conservative movement, the Republican Party, and this republic need a president who will honor President Reagan by putting federalism back on the front burner. It should be one of that president's first principles, just as it was for Reagan.

Who among the current crop of candidates is most likely to do this, and who will balance federalist principles with social, economic and security considerations?

Not the aforementioned Mitt Romney, who doesn't understand the need for a fourth leg on the stool. As governor of Massachusetts he increased government regulation and expanded the state government bureaucracy with his RomneyCare health care plan. Not only is federalism not high on his agenda, the man doesn't even seem to understand the meaning of the term. Even if you give Romney a break on his recent adoption of a pro life view, he has made several conflicting statements on his personal use and ownership of firearms.

Not John McCain, who partnered with Ted Kennedy on an immigration bill that did more to unify conservatives in opposition to it than even the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency has done. Whether you consider illegal immigration to be a social issue or, like Fred Thompson, a security matter, McCain's bill is a deal-breaker.

Not Rudy Giuliani, who is so weak on social issues that even economic conservatives want no part of him. And it's not just abortion. It's also immigration and Second Amendment issues, plus a few more.

And not Mike Huckabee, who falls short on economic issues, earning poor reviews from the Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.

It's Fred Thompson who offers the best balance for movement conservatives. On economic and small government issues, he is regarded favorably. Like most of the other leading candidates, he's strong on security matters. On social issues Fred's pro-life, but his prosposal for a consitutional amendment to prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states' legislatures falls short of the federal amendment banning gay marriage that most socons favor.

Fred's federalist principles have clearly put him at odds with many social conservatives on this one issue. Which begs the question of which tradeoffs are social conservatives willing to make? If they reject Thompson on this one issue, they will be cutting off noses to spite faces. The bar for getting any amendment incorporated into our constitution was intentionally set very high by the founders, who were so dedicated to the constitution they bequeathed us that they wanted us to think long and hard before we attempt to change it. If socons sacrifice security in exchange for promises of a federal amendment banning gay marriage, they could be making a deal which may not deliver the goods and could weaken our nation, especially at its borders. If they trade federalist principles for the same promises, they still have no guarantee of getting what they want, and they will allow the federal government to keep on growing, perhaps to the point where it can't be stopped.

In addition, they will betray one of those first principles which Ronald Reagan stood for. As J.B. Williams has pointed out:

Reagan was most conservative in the arena of national security and firm foreign policy. Reagan understood that America was the only nation in the world with the power and moral authority to defend freedom and liberty around the globe, in defense of freedom and liberty here. Reagan commanded respect across the political aisle at home and abroad and remains one of the most loved US Presidents in US history even today.

But he was somewhat liberal on social issues. Or, like Thompson, he was at least an anti-federalist who sought to return private assets and personal liberty to the states and the people at every chance.

Social conservatives need to sit down and think carefully about which candidate can bring economic, security and small government conservatives together with them to defeat the Democrats, dust off Ronald Reagan's blueprints and rebuild the Republican party and the nation. But before they sit, they should count the number of the legs on that stool and check to make sure they're all the same length. Otherwise, they might just find themselves headed for a fall.

- Josh

Stronger than expected showings in the Ames Straw Poll and the Value Voters Summit Straw Poll have catapaulted former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee into the upper stratosphere of the latest political buzz. He's a likeable guy, he projects himself well and he said all of the right things to the summit and in the recent Florida GOP debate. Indeed, many social conservatives seem to be especially eager to annoint the one-time Baptist preacher as their choice for the GOP presidential nomination, given the recent difficulty the Christian Right has experienced in their quest for a white knight who will represent their interests. But before conservatives of any stripe peel off the backing of an "I'm fer the Huckster" bumper sticker, they should do a little homework.

Fortunately, some more thoughtful conservatives have been doing just that. There's been a flurry of research done on Huckabee, and the results are readily available on the web. Much of it tells a tale that is scarcely good news for conservatives. In my analysis of the findings, I've discarded all of the ad hominem attacks and any questions about the man's ethics. When you get into discussing a candidate’s ethics, the potential for smear increases geometrically, and besides, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm willing to give the bass-playing politician (Huckabee has a band called Capital Offense) the benefit of any doubt that he's a nice guy and a man of good and decent character. On the issues, however, I'm not quite so easy, and that's where the ammo against Huck can be found aplenty.

Let's begin with The Club for Growth, a well-regarded fiscally conservative interest group which is not impressed by the former Arkansas guv's record:

"Governor Huckabee says he is a fiscal conservative," Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said, "but his ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation. To be sure, Governor Huckabee's record displays an occasional deference to a pro-growth philosophy, but that is only a small slice of a much bigger picture. The Club for Growth feels citizens deserve a full picture of where Governor Huckabee stands on the critical economic issues of the day."

The Club is so concerned about Huckabee’s carefully planned re-invention of himself that it has put up a website, Tax Hike Mike, to warn voters not to be fooled by this "other" Man From Hope (also Bill Clinton’s home town).

What do Arkansas conservatives think of their former governor? Not much. The Arkansas Republican Assembly, an organization whose members are among the most fiercely conservative in the state, held a presidential straw poll at its annual convention in July. Huckabee was trounced in the poll by Fred Thompson, who received 86% (that’s not a typo - 86% is correct) of the votes cast by the ARRA delegates.

Freedom Works, the special interest group chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and dedicated to less government, lower taxes, and more freedom, has posted a video clip of an interview with The Incredible Huck from his appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” In the clip, Freedom Works observes, Rev. Mike had “his anti-corporate, anti-wealth creation talking points” ready for the program’s mostly left-wing viewing audience. The blog post is titled “Huckabee sounds like a leftist on health care.”

On immigration, Huckabee is not quite the strict enforcement guy his campaign would like you to believe he is. As the Arizona Republic reported:

Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as "inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery." He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.

Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."

...Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races.

The organization English First reminds its members that Huckabee, in a 2003 radio address as governor, advanced the notion that Arkansas taxpayers should be generous to the offspring of illegal immigrants in their state:

"I looked into the eyes of immigrant Mexican children and was moved. These children often don't have enough to eat, don't have good clothes and don't have a dry place to sleep at night... And I was reminded we can give something back by offering a helping hand to those who follow the American dream along Interstate 30 and Interstate 40 into Arkansas."

By all means let's see to it that these children are fed and clothed, and let's give them a warm and dry place to sleep as we provide them with free transportation back home. But let's allow charitable oranizations to provide the feeding and clothing. Our rich Uncle Sam will have to pick up the tab for deportation of entire families because the parents chose to break the law and enter our country without bothering to go through the process that legal immigrants follow.

So far, not so good. But it gets worse...

You don't have to be a libertarian to find the CATO Institute’s evaluations useful on fiscal and federalist issues. Here’s CATO’s take on Huckabee:

“Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship... Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.”

Then there’s this excerpt from an Arkansas Leader editorial comparing and contrasting Huckabee and Hillary:

“It would be hard to separate the former Arkansas governor and the former Arkansas first lady on... education and health care...”

“You will remember that ArKids First, the great expansion of government-paid health insurance for children, was Arkansas Advocates’ suggestion to the newly sworn in Gov. Huckabee in 1996. He eagerly embraced it and calls it even today his proudest achievement...”

“As governor, Huckabee sought and won a federal waiver for a plan to have the federal government — that’s you — subsidize health insurance for poor adult workers. Other Republicans, including President Bush, are opposing that remedy as creeping socialism.”

Finally, Huckabee had his own Willie Horton moment, turning loose a monster on the public that even Bill Clinton wouldn’t pardon:

... there is one man Huckabee believed deserved a second chance, convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who continues to haunt Huckabee’s burgeoning presidential campaign.

... Dumond - now dead - was paroled from an Arkansas prison, with then- governor Huckabee’s endorsement, only to sexually assault and kill a woman in Missouri.

“It was one of those things I just feel horrible about. You just ache all the way to the bone over what happened,” the former Arkansas governor said in an interview. “But nobody could know that” Dumond would attack again, he said.

Dumond’s case is notorious in Arkansas. In 1984, he raped a 17-year-old girl. While awaiting trial at his home, he was castrated by, he said, masked intruders. Later, after Dumond went to prison for life, some people in Arkansas saw the sentence as excessive, especially given his mutilation.

Huckabee was one, and, after becoming governor in 1996, he announced his desire to commute Dumond’s sentence. Dumond’s rape victim, Ashley Stevens, saw it differently.

Stevens, now 40 and living in the western United States, said she tried to persuade Huckabee not to shorten the sentence for Dumond.

“I told [Huckabee]: If you ever let him out, he’s going to do it again,” she said in an interview.

She was able to get a meeting with the governor - who, she said, had not spoken to her before announcing his intention to commute Dumond’s sentence - but realized Huckabee had “made up his mind.” So Stevens stood up, she said, walked over to Huckabee, who was seated on a sofa, squatted down and thrust her face inches from his.

“I said, ‘This is how close I was to Dumond’s face for an hour,’ “ Stevens recalled. “ ‘I’ll never forget his face, and you’ll never forget mine.’ “

The parole board - following a closed meeting with Huckabee - decided to let Dumond go. The following year, Dumond committed the Missouri slaying. He died in prison in 2005.

This sad story is not a blot on Mike Huckabee's character, buit it reveals a lack of good judgement that our nation can ill afford in its chief executive.

In the final analysis, Huckabee appears to be even more of a “compasssionate conservative,” big-spending, big-government guy and open-borders advocate than George W. Bush, without the dedication of the current president to lasting tax cuts. And he sometimes thinks with his heart and not his head.

Danger, Will Robinson, danger...

An Admiral Painter salute to Tommy Oliver for his research in finding and making available the CATO, Arkansas Leader and Dumond pieces.

See also: More not to like about Mike.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, has launched an attack on GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson for Thompson's refusal to sign Norquist's pledge against raising taxes. Team Fred spokeswoman Karen Hanretty explained her candidate's position in an e-mail:

Fred Thompson’s record of cutting taxes and pushing for reform speaks for itself. This is the approach he will take as president. He is bound by that principle and does not make a practice of signing pledges.

That answer was not good enough for Grover the Security Pushover (more on that further down the column), who told Ronald Kessler of Newsmax:

The fact that he refuses to say he won’t raise taxes and in fact all but shouts he wants to walk into a room and raise taxes to fix entitlements means that on taxes, he is the worst Republican running.

The worst Republican running, on taxes? Norquist should have at least checked out Thompson's record on taxes before making a total fool out of himself. Had he bothered to read the tax-minimalist Club for Growth's white paper on Fred Thompson, for example, he would have learned that:

Over his eight years in the Senate, Fred Thompson generally supported broad-based tax cuts while opposing tax increases. These include:

Voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts
Voted for repeal of the Death Tax
Voted for capital gains tax cuts
Voted to require a supermajority to pass tax hikes
Voted to reduce the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation
Voted against waiving the Budget Act to allow for a cigarette tax hike

Thompson was a forceful proponent of tax reform, lambasting the IRS as “mismanaged” and “wasteful,” and a strong supporter of the flat tax. In fact, Thompson was the only senator to vote to table an amendment proposed by Senator Dorgan that took the flat tax off the table during a budget debate. “The problem with the Dorgan amendment is simple,” Thompson declared in a press release the following day, “it puts you on record against a flat tax. I think a flat tax is one of the options that should be considered as part of the debate on comprehensive tax reform.”

Or Norquist could have consulted with the libertarian CATO Institute's Michael Tanner, who wrote in American Spectator:

During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Reps. Ron Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo). He generally shared McCain’s opposition to pork barrel spending and earmarks, and voted against the 2002 farm bill. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and has generally been solid in support of tax reduction. He has consistently supported entitlement reform, voting to means-test Medicare and supporting personal accounts for Social Security.

BTW, The National Taxpayers Union that Tanner references voted Fred Thompson the winner of its presidential straw poll back in June:

Every attendee of our Conference was given a chance to vote for any of the declared Presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat. After counting the votes, we can announce partial results.

Fred Thompson was the winner with 25.7% of the vote.
Ron Paul came in second place with 16.7%.
Rudy Giuliani placed third with 12.5%
Mitt Romney garnered 9.0% of the vote to snag fourth place.
The top five was rounded out by John McCain, who received 5.6%

Had he taken the trouble, Norquist could have investigated how Fred Thompson was rated by other interest groups concerned with budget, spending and tax-related issues:

Fred Thompson supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform:
90 percent in 2001
90 percent in 2000
85 percent in 1999
70 percent in 1998.

Thompson supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee:
97 percent in 1999-2000
89 percent in 1997-1998
97 percent in 1995-1996

Thompson supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union:
84 percent in 2001
80 percent in 1999
70 percent in 1998
78 percent in 1997

On that same website, Sen. Thompson's individual votes on fiscal issues are plainly displayed for Norquist and everyone else to see.

On a similar website, a more intellectually curious Norquist could have read some key Fred Thompson tax quotes...

“The US tax code is broken and a burden on US taxpayers and businesses, large & small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings & investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars & untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs & the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, & we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where & how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler & fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity & economic security, I am committed to:
- Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth
- A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing US competitiveness abroad
- Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.” - Fred Thompson
Source: Campaign website, www.Fred08.com, “Issues” Sep 20, 2007

“We have a tax code that’s hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.” - Fred Thompson
Source: Fox News “Hannity & Colmes” interview Jun 6, 2007

While serving in the US Senate, Fred Thompson was a consistent proponent for lower taxes and a more simplified tax system. He hasn’t changed his mind. Thompson says, “We need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a “more progressive” tax system should be asked one question: Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue—or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?”
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.166-169 Jun 3, 2007

“Taxes are necessary. But they don’t make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from investing & taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional $1 collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as $2 worse off. To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible.” - Fred Thomspon
Source: Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner, Orange County CA May 4, 2007

“There is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 & 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.

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%. Because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman.” - Fred Thompson
Source: Fred Thompson editorial in The Wall Street Journal Apr 14, 2007

...and votes:

Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates.
Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the “marriage penalty” tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket
Reference: Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-112 on May 17, 2001

Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%.
Reference: Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-114 on May 17, 2001

Voted YES on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’.
Vote on a bill that would reduce taxes on married couples by increasing their standard deduction to twice that of single taxpayers and raise the income limits on both the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets for married couples to twice that of singles
Reference: Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000

Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut.
The Nickles (R-OK) Amdendment would express the sense of the Senate that Congress should adopt an across-the-board cut in all discretionary funding, to prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund
Status: Amdt. Agreed to Y)54; N)46
Reference: Nickles Amdt #1889; Bill S. 1650 ; vote number 1999-313 on Oct 6, 1999

Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.
Senator Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to express the sense of the Senate on support for a Constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)48; NV)2
Reference: Kyl Amdt #2221; Bill S Con Res 86 ; vote number 1998-71 on Apr 2, 1998

Fred Thompson Strongly Opposes topic 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy

Finally, a Grover Norquist who was honestly interested enough to learn Fred Thompson's thinking on taxes could have read some of Fred's writing on the subject here, here and here.

But no, Grover Norquist is not interested in Fred Thompson's actual philosophy and record on taxes. He's only interested in his self-aggrandizing tax pledge.

Meanwhile, Norquist has some issues of his own which put him at odds with most conservatives and other patriots in this country.

Instead of attacking Fred Thompson on taxes, one of the former Senator's strongest issues, Norquist should be explaining his relationship with his strange bedfellows, many of whom want to see the United States of America brought down in a bloody jihad.

Besides, pledges against raising taxes are no guarantee that they will not be increased, as we all learned from the case of a one-term former president who once said something about reading lips. Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan both learned the hard way that sometimes, faced with an uncooperative congress, a president's stated principles may get compromised to achieve his larger goals. In Reagan's case it was spending the Soviets into the collapse of their empire. In the case of the elder Bush, it was done in the name of deficit reduction and to head off a recession. Fred Thompson, taking to heart Santayana's advice to learn from history, is not likely to push for further campaign finance reform, although he is still dismayed by the corruptness of a politician taking big money from donors and then passing legislation favorable to those same donors. And, despite his refusal to sign Norquist's ultimatum, neither is he likely to raise taxes as president. Perhaps Thompson is also taking to heart a lesser-known piece of advice from Santayana: "Our character...is an omen of our destiny, and the more integrity we have and keep, the simpler and nobler that destiny is likely to be."

 

- Josh Painter

SOUTHWEST MISSOURI - According to Area 417, a local website very friendly to Ron Paul, the sometime Libertarian, sometime Republican Texas congressman won a Nov. 1 straw poll conducted by the Springfield Metro Republican Club with an astounding 78% of the vote.

On face value I would conclude that Republicans in my area have gone 'round the bend, which would go a long way toward accounting for the fact that Claire McCaskill was elected to the U.S. Senate in this State. But careful reading of the blog post reveals that the poll was open to any Missouri resident who will be of voting age by Feb. 5, 2008.

The Ronpaulists, well known for their "Goggle bombing" tactics to overwhelm various straw polls with open voting, obviously ganged up on the hapless Metro Republicans to skew the results of their poll. But if you're in an organization that doesn't restrict voting in its straw polls to members only, you gotta expect that sooner or later, you're going to get skewed.

Indeed, a poll posted on the Metro Republicans' own web site, though based on a very small sample, shows results which seem to be more in line with what one would expect from Springfield, a relatively conservative town with a sizeable evangelical contingent:

Fred Thompson 40%
Mitt Romney 20%
Ron Paul 20%
Mike Huckabee 10%
Sam Brownback 10%
Rudy Giuliani 0%
John McCain 0%
Duncan Hunter 0%
Tom Tancredo 0%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%

Whatever you may think of the Ronpaulists' tactics, you have to admire the way they think nationally and mobilize locally. The ability to turn out large numbers of supporters, often on short notice, is a testament to some excellent organizational abilities and a dedicated rank and file.

To those who toil for such a lost cause, I salute you on an outstanding effort.

- Josh Painter

After a week of intense political blogging, I need a little break. No, not from political blogging - just from the more combative elements of it. Ever so often, I like to engage in the relative rest and relaxation of pure speculation on the choice of a potential running mate for Fred Thompson. Yes, I'm fully aware that we have to nominate him first. But we Fredheads surely got Fred drafted into the race, didn't we? And, as the only mainstream conservative among the top five candidates for the GOP nod, I have not the slightest doubt that Sen. Thompson's message, based as it is on the same first principles that guided Ronald Reagan, will see him in the limelight on the Republican Party's big stage in Minnesota come September 4, 2008. I'm as sure of it now as I was last March that he would answer in the affirmative to our call of "Run, Fred, Run."

In a recent post on this subject, I discussed the benefits that the Thompson candidacy might accrue, especially among women voters, if Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) were to be chosen early on to run with Fred Thompson. Since then, I've heard from some Alaska residents who are opposed to the speculative proposal. Not that most are down on Palin - just the opposite. I've received negative feedback on Gov. Palin from only one person. It's simply because Palin has only been in the governor's mansion a relatively short time, and she does have some rather important unfinished business. Some Alaskans, it seems, don't want their governor taken away from them just yet. But that will do liittle to deter those who are actvely promoting her as a potential vice presidential nominee in 2008. I'm not convinced that Alaska needs her more than the rest of the nation, the Republican Party and Fred Thompson do. Here at the onset of this discussion, I suspect that Gov. Palin might just be the ideal candidate. However, just for the sake of argument, let's explore some other possibilities and see if we can find a better potential VP candidate. That shouldn't be too difficult, should it?

I've been asked, why not Duncan Hunter? The California Congressman just doesn't bring that much to a Thompson ticket, IMO. Little known outside of his San Diego area district, Hunter can't deliver his home state. His views on trade haven't exactly warmed the hearts of large Republican donors, who tend to be free traders. And Thompson, who is doing fine with small donors, needs more big money contributors to be competitive with the Democrats in the general election. Also, it is the exception rather than the rule in the modern era for a GOP nominee to choose one of his former rivals from the primaries to be his running mate. Finally, any potential Number Two on a Thompson ticket must be a governor or former governor.

Although Fred Thompson has proven leadership abilities, there is a percieved lack of "required" executive experience on Fred's part because he served in the Senate. That he served as counsel to a governor (Lamar Alexander) and some powerful Senate committees (Watergate, Intelligence and Foreign Relations), chaired a key committee as a Senator (Governmental Affairs), sat on some important commissions (nominating Tennessee judges and reviewing US-China economic and security matters) and chaired a State Department board (to advise Secretary Rice), this won't be enough for the executive experience hawks. Never mind that neither Abraham Lincoln nor Harry S. Truman had any executive experience to speak of, and they both rose to the occasion when some decisions critical to the nation's future had to be made. Never mind that Jimmy Carter, arguably the country's worst president ever, had lots of executive experience as Georgia's governor, and it didn't help him much. Thompson will have to name a governor just to mute the roar from the executive experience harpies.

So which Republican governor, other than Palin, would be a good fit for Fred Thompson as a running mate? Georgia's Sonny Perdue is resonably conservative and strong on immigration, but, since the Peach State is already Thompson country, he doesn't bring a geographical balance to a Thompson ticket. The same problem exists for other Southern governors. Although the tag team of Clinton and Gore won twice despite being from neighboring Southern states, I don't think that will work in 2008 - certainly not for Republicans. The drive-bys' double standard, doncha know. So a better choice would be a governor of a state above the Mason Dixon line, a blue or purple one, if possible - one which might reasonably be expected to be turned. There are three Republican governors in the Northeast (CT, VT and RI) but none are strong enough to paint their blue states red, and they aren't the most conservative of governors, either. So that leads us to look at Midwestern state chief executives.

John Hoeven (R-ND) supports S-CHIP and the 63% increase in funding to implement it, so he's out. Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty is one of John McCain's biggest supporters, and he's acquired a record as a flip-flopper. Dave Heineman of Nebraska has been in office only a year, so it may be too early to tap him for a vice presidential run. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) has been in office less than two years, and he upset Indiana conservatives by proposing a temporary tax increase on people earning more than $100,000 per year (Indiana's legislature voted it down). Next!

Former Colorado governor Bill Owens is an advisor to Mitt Romney's campaign. Let's move along... Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota has endorsed Mike Huckabee. My own state of Missouri has boy-wonder governor Matt Blunt, but he's drawn the ire of Show-Me State conservatives for his choice of Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Breckenridge for appointment to the State Supreme Court. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich from the Free Congress Foundation and Kay Daly of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary issued a joint memorandum which concludes, "Judge Breckenridge will inevitably become Gov. Blunt's version of David Souter." Moving right along...

So now we're forced to look outside the Midwest. Little-known Felix Camacho of Guam has an earmark problem. We ruled out Linda Lingle of Hawaii last time as too liberal. On to the West. Arnold... ouch, I had to bite my tongue! Besides, he's not eligible. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) is a McCain backer. Nevada's Jim Gibbons and Idaho's Butch Otter have both been in office for only a year.

We're all out of Republican governors, folks. If we have to consider a governor who is a relative short-termer, we already had the best choice before we began this second exercise in vice presidential speculation. Bottom line: the women's vote has more potential to turn blue or purple states to a Thompson candidacy in the general election than any choice of a governor from a single such state. I cannot stress how important the votes of women will be to the election of 2008. It will make or break Fred Thompson's bid for the Oval Office.

You know, I just relaized something. I have convinced myself. While I was leaning toward Palin at the start of this exercise, here at the conclusion it's a lock. Sorry, Alaska, but Fred Thompson, the Republican Party and the United States of America need her more than you do. Sarah Palin for vice-president! For what it's worth, consider this an unqualified endorsement.

- Josh Painter