R4′08 contributor Jennifer Rubin reacts to Fred Thompson’s position on tort reform and comments on the state of his candidacy generally with Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
While I agree with Kudlow and Rubin regarding the need for tort reform, I think Fred makes a good point regarding the need to return to conservatism a respect for separation of powers and federalism. If I can regularly bash so-cons for wanting to federalize every issue that offends their personal morality, I can surely look in the mirror as a fi-con and realize that FDT may be correct that we don’t need a national policy for every local issue.
Rudy’s GOP stands on the legs of the market and the war. Romney’s stool rests on growth, family, and defense. Thompson’s GOP also has three legs: fiscal conservatism, defense conservatism, and CONSTITUTIONALISM. If I were going to add a third leg to Rudy’s vision for the GOP, that’s what it would be: a respect for the principles of the Constitution, and an acknowledgement that government ought to operate in accordance with those principles, even the ones that get in the way of any given policy agenda.
I agree with thompson on this one. tort reform is a state issue. i wonder how firm he would stay to such a stance as president. it is actually refreshing to here a candidate even talk about federalism.
Romney also talks a lot about federalism and that states should take the lead on controversial issues. One reason I like both of these guys.
But if a lawsuit can be moved to any jurisdiction in the country, doesn’t that kind of impede states to really control their own destiny over these things?
At the very least, the federal government should be threatening to cut off certain federal funds to the states if they don’t provide some kind of tort caps — similar to how they raised the drinking age to 21 nationwide without a federal law.
His answer was pretty clear: for national issues, congress should control, otherwise, the states should control.
There’s nothing wrong with federal legislation concerning suits against interstate corporations (making it a national issue). Nothing he said contradicted that point. He’s made many votes; he was trying to give a broad answer.
I must be in the minority. This answer gave me a reason to vote for him….
Politicians accomplish very little good, do we really want another compassionate GOP candidate?
I’m very partial to Fred, particularly when he talks about state’s rights, but he really fumbled his answers in that interview. Very worrying that he can’t remember his votes, even worse that Kudlow noted he had voted against reform, whilst Thompson said that he had also voted in favour of it too. Flip-flop anyone?
Even though Thompson doesn’t remember it, he did vote against tort reform. He said he did so because of federalism, without recognizing that for tort reform to be effective it has to be done everywhere or else you get our current system. American businesses spend more money defending against lawsuits than they do on R&D. Thompson is wrong on the issue either way, but if he is wrong because he doesn’t understand the why it has to be national it is one thing, if he sides with trial lawyers then that makes it a whole different ballgame.
I’m glad he is finally getting in because he needs to give real answers not these less than artful dodges like, I don’t remember that vote or my staffer filled it out. Lucky for Thompson he didn’t start talking about what he would do in the TN house on this issue like he did on abortion. Larry Kudlow might not have cut him off before he finished saying he thinks that at the state level there shouldn’t be restrictions.
Alright I’m just kidding about the last part, but so far Thompson hasn’t been clear enough to really know for sure.
He needs to lead and say this is how things need to be instead of being so vague. I hope that when he does announce he starts talking more specifics, not vague generalities that we have heard so far.
Larry Kudlow: How would you go after, I know these are complex subjects and we don’t have time, so if you can just give a thought or two
Fred Thompson: They’re pretty complex for a fellow who hasn’t announced for, ah, anything, ah, Larry
Larry Kudlow: The issue is Tort Reform. You voted against limitations to, ah, tort reform settlements, class action lawsuit penalties. That’s a huge issue in the US Business community. A lot of American business is going over seas in search of a less punitive, ah, class action system. Some of your critics say it is because you used to be a trial lawyer.
Fred Thompson: Yeah
Larry Kudlow: why did you vote against tort Reform?
Fred Thompson: I can’t wait to get back to trying those intersection collision cases, ah, Larry, but, ah, no, the one, several of those issues, I don’t remember that particular one, I, I, voted for class action reform, ah, ah, I know on a couple of different occasions, because I consider that to be a national issue
Larry Kudlow: Well you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudglow: you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well well the..
Larry Kudlow: which is really the heart of the matter
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudlow: ..as you know venue shopping has been one of the big issues with the trial lawyers
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: they all want to go to Madison county.
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: so they can get outrageous settlements
Fred Thompson: let me give you an answer that covers, I think, every one of those so called tort reform, ah, votes, ah, there have been things that have been the purview of the states for two-hundred years, and ah, for ah, Washington, ah, and in one case the Judiciary committee to sit and calculate attorneys fees, appropriate attorney’s fees, negotiated on the state level is preposterous for one thing and is against the principles of federalism, ah, ah, ah, on another level. I had a couple of 99 to 1 votes where I was the one vote where mom and apple pie kind of things were, ah, were, were, put forward, because they felt like it was a good idea to federalize those traditional state things, and without commenting on the merits of the case I just said the federal government can not do what it is supposed to be doing competently now, were, were, were, rife with, with, inabilities from ah, ah, computer technology, to ah, ah, our people, people passing an audit, but the federal government hasn’t passed one, ah, ah, for 10 years so why keep arrogating these type of responsibilities to Washington DC with some kind of a so called fix, ah, when we are ah, supposed to be, ah, federal system under the constitution, and if you got a problem with state, you know, this is a competitive system out there, and a lot of other states out there, and the competition is, ah, is a good thing among the states and some times you even get some innovation among the states.
Fred finds out that answering specific questions is tougher than writing columns and making radio speeches. And that he has some baggage in the Senate he will have to explain, discard and/or apologize for.
If Giuliani or McCain won I could enthusiastically volunteer for them come generals- more so McCain. Not so sure about Thompson, he hasn’t struck me as quite the talent.
That clip made me feel really good about Thompson in the white house, as I was a little less certain previously. I think he’s spot on with his views of federalism and its importance. I wish more people would talk like that ( and not just a cop out to why they support abortion.)
Of course, there are some great things about him, plus I do happen to be a Republican. I wouldn’t be enthusiastic winning the nomination, but I would be enthusiastic about him winning the white house.
McCain, Giuliani, Romney are all solid. Huckabee maybe, Brownback, nice guy, lousy candidate. Fred Thompson? Not impressed, he doesn’t seem to be the talent of the top three.
As a Party we will need to pull together after it is clear who our nominee will be. I strongly support Rudy but also think that Romney would be a good second choice. While I would support Fred if he wins the nomination, I do think that he is the weakest of the top four candidates.
Do we really want to select the weakest of our top four candidates to take on Hillary in the general election?
I think Fred is potentially weaker than some of the second tier candidates.
No offense to the Fred supporters but his candidacy seems based on the weak conservative credentials of the Three Amigos (McCain, Rudy and Romney).
I’m not seeing a positive reason why Fred Thompson should be President. All I see are candidates already running that have some work to do before they’re ready for the Republican base.
By the way — I agree about pulling together as a party…with a few exceptions.
I would campaign enthusiastically for Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. I think there are fantastic elements about all of them. Romney, I’m not sure if I could volunteer for, even in the face of Edwards, Obama, or Hillary. I just don’t think we should have to settle for Romney, and I think we could emerge with someone great after four years of hell under a Democratic administration — why settle for a man like Romney?
Kris — I agree, and believe that if they announced *in advance* what their administration plans would be, it could make things very interesting. McCain would make a great Defense Secretary! Giuliani/Thompson — I like, I like.
I’m wary of Fred saying that he’s a Federalist but then saying the states should handle abortion as if it didn’t effect the nation as a whole. I also didn’t like his indecision about whether abortion should be criminalized or not.
My question is (and someone may have the answer) if you are going to make abortion illegal how will it be any effect if you can’t criminalize the doctors? I just can’t read no criminalization as anything but keeping it legal.
I am not making this transcript up. Every single one of the “ah”’s that I type, came out of Fred Thompson’s mouth.
Larry Kudlow: How would you go after, I know these are complex subjects and we don’t have time, so if you can just give a thought or two
Fred Thompson: They’re pretty complex for a fellow who hasn’t announced for, ah, anything, ah, Larry
Larry Kudlow: The issue is Tort Reform. You voted against limitations to, ah, tort reform settlements, class action lawsuit penalties. That’s a huge issue in the US Business community. A lot of American business is going over seas in search of a less punitive, ah, class action system. Some of your critics say it is because you used to be a trial lawyer.
Fred Thompson: Yeah
Larry Kudlow: why did you vote against tort Reform?
Fred Thompson: I can’t wait to get back to trying those intersection collision cases, ah, Larry, but, ah, no, the one, several of those issues, I don’t remember that particular one, I, I, voted for class action reform, ah, ah, I know on a couple of different occasions, because I consider that to be a national issue
Larry Kudlow: Well you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudglow: you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well well the..
Larry Kudlow: which is really the heart of the matter
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudlow: ..as you know venue shopping has been one of the big issues with the trial lawyers
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: they all want to go to Madison county.
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: so they can get outrageous settlements
Fred Thompson: let me give you an answer that covers, I think, every one of those so called tort reform, ah, votes, ah, there have been things that have been the purview of the states for two-hundred years, and ah, for ah, Washington, ah, and in one case the Judiciary committee to sit and calculate attorneys fees, appropriate attorney’s fees, negotiated on the state level is preposterous for one thing and is against the principles of federalism, ah, ah, ah, on another level. I had a couple of 99 to 1 votes where I was the one vote where mom and apple pie kind of things were, ah, were, were, put forward, because they felt like it was a good idea to federalize those traditional state things, and without commenting on the merits of the case I just said the federal government can not do what it is supposed to be doing competently now, were, were, were, rife with, with, inabilities from ah, ah, computer technology, to ah, ah, our people, people passing an audit, but the federal government hasn’t passed one, ah, ah, for 10 years so why keep arrogating these type of responsibilities to Washington DC with some kind of a so called fix, ah, when we are ah, supposed to be, ah, federal system under the constitution, and if you got a problem with state, you know, this is a competitive system out there, and a lot of other states out there, and the competition is, ah, is a good thing among the states and some times you even get some innovation among the states.
Notice this is all one sentence. He never finishes his idea, but keeps tacking stuff on. Is it something to be proud that the senate voted on things and it was 99 to 1? I mean if you are right about an important issue, is Fred Thompson really the only one in the senate who saw the truth of the issue? When he started talking about vague random mom and apple pie stuff, that had nothing to do with the question, I was dumbfounded. Oh my gosh, what a dork. Am I listening to Bill Clinton here, or is he going to answer the question? He is just making stuff up. We don’t want lawyers coming up with innovative ways of suing companies do we? What is he talking about?
Larry Kudlow: how
Fred Thompson: in fact that is where welfare reform came from So, ah, you know we got to be a little bit careful if we are true to our principals, that when it comes to some subject matter ah, that we feel strongly about that it’s not, ah, just another an answer that we feel strongly about it, the question is whether, the question is at what level of government it should be dealt with.
Hillary would eat this guy for lunch, what does this have to do with anything? No wonder he is afraid to debate Rudy, McCain, and Romney.
Larry Kudlow: Sometimes states are really bad laboratories, sort of killing off the animals that they are testing and guess I have to ask you
Fred Thompson: Well there is not very
Larry Kudlow: let me just ask this question because businessmen are really interested in this, how would you as a president Thompson either cap these lawsuit penalties or perhaps more to the point stop frivolous lawsuits, weather its securities lawsuits or medical malpractice lawsuits, or asbestos lawsuits, that literally put thousands of businesses, 10s of thousands of workers out of work and just muck up the whole capitalist system. How do you stop that sir?
Fred Thompson: Larry in state after state, and you know after leaving their little communities getting in their car, driving past their state capital, getting to the airport, flying to Washington DC, to get Washington DC to do something about something that happened in their locality there, in that regard, with regard to tort reform, state after state took it on themselves as they should to change outrageous, ah, ah, supreme court members who, ah, who, ah, were doing ah, things that were ah, in the trial lawyer’s pockets and things like that and they went to the voters and got changes made. (Lets start naming the only states that would vote for you). In Mississippi, in Alabama, in Texas and a number of states it just shows that it works the easy solution often times is to go to the federal government now there is there is certain things that without question, that ah, have become nationalized because, ah, globalization and the communication and transportation changes in our society , but you have to take a new look at it, you have to have a federal response to legitimate federal issues, but I think the first thing we often do sometimes, as conservatives, supposedly, is jump to the, ah, to the, ah, unilateral federal, ah, option, ah, before you give the states the responsibility. You can’t say that you believe in freedom ah, ah, ah, with regard to someone, ah, as long as someone does what you want them to do.
hay ThatLibertarianGuy: Yeah, why settle for a republican governor who was able to win in the most democratic state in the union, balance a 3 billion dollar budget deficit, leave a 2.3 billion dollar rainy day fund? Why would you settle for someone with a Harvard MBA and Law degree, and graduated at the top of his class when you could have someone like McCain who graduated at the very bottom of his west point class? Why would you settle for someone who worked out a program with state police, so they could arrest illegal immigrants? Why would you settle for someone who vetoed. Why would business republicans who believe in the free market pick a guy with the word “capitalist” in his job title (venture capitalist). Why would people pick someone who was able to provide a 103% return on investment for those who invested in his company? Why pick a guy who was able to start hundred of companies, and turn around hundred of more companies? Why pick a guy would would charge major corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars, so he could tell them what to do to fix their businesses? Yeah, he sounds like a looser… I couldn’t support Mitt either… Your very smart “ThatLibertarianGuy” we should all listen to you!
I’d rather someone who has a belief system then someone who creates a belief system
in the name of political expediency. Your man, Romney, has some serious issues that he will have to eventually address. He is not the second choice of most Republicans, and will tank if he is unable to take both Iowa and New Hampshire
Compared to Thompson, McCain and Giuliani. Romney has the most to lose.
His 10-13% national rating is going to be his absolute peak, so really
try not to get too excited.
First people laughed that Romney was not over single didgets in Key states like NH and MI where he is known. Now he is winning those states along with Iowa. They used to mock him because he couildn’t get over 5%, then over 8-9 now it’s 10-13.
It used to be little bump Romney hit he was over.
Now we see Romney is stronger than ever and when he puts his time into more of a national strategy he will climb as well. So far, history and time is on the side of my argument.
I’m not mocking Romney, my opinion is based upon logic. If you are the only guy currently
going ahead with multi-million dollar advertising in a select few states, then sure…
you are going to gain short-term traction.
Jason, you haven’t seen anything from Giuliani or McCain yet. Fast-forward to November, every man
and his dog will be on the airwaves putting their message accross.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
It seems like the clip cuts off the very articulate Ms. Rubin.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
While I agree with Kudlow and Rubin regarding the need for tort reform, I think Fred makes a good point regarding the need to return to conservatism a respect for separation of powers and federalism. If I can regularly bash so-cons for wanting to federalize every issue that offends their personal morality, I can surely look in the mirror as a fi-con and realize that FDT may be correct that we don’t need a national policy for every local issue.
Rudy’s GOP stands on the legs of the market and the war. Romney’s stool rests on growth, family, and defense. Thompson’s GOP also has three legs: fiscal conservatism, defense conservatism, and CONSTITUTIONALISM. If I were going to add a third leg to Rudy’s vision for the GOP, that’s what it would be: a respect for the principles of the Constitution, and an acknowledgement that government ought to operate in accordance with those principles, even the ones that get in the way of any given policy agenda.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I agree with thompson on this one. tort reform is a state issue. i wonder how firm he would stay to such a stance as president. it is actually refreshing to here a candidate even talk about federalism.
Romney also talks a lot about federalism and that states should take the lead on controversial issues. One reason I like both of these guys.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
But if a lawsuit can be moved to any jurisdiction in the country, doesn’t that kind of impede states to really control their own destiny over these things?
At the very least, the federal government should be threatening to cut off certain federal funds to the states if they don’t provide some kind of tort caps — similar to how they raised the drinking age to 21 nationwide without a federal law.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Rubin, who I respect, is not a Thompson fan.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I’ll give this to Fred… he’s got the 4:00 minute sound bite down pat. (gotta tighten that up buddy.)
June 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Nothing wrong with states rights, but did any of you see Hannity save Thompson from making a Rudy statement on aortion the other night?
June 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
What happened?
June 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
His answer was pretty clear: for national issues, congress should control, otherwise, the states should control.
There’s nothing wrong with federal legislation concerning suits against interstate corporations (making it a national issue). Nothing he said contradicted that point. He’s made many votes; he was trying to give a broad answer.
I must be in the minority. This answer gave me a reason to vote for him….
Politicians accomplish very little good, do we really want another compassionate GOP candidate?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’m very partial to Fred, particularly when he talks about state’s rights, but he really fumbled his answers in that interview. Very worrying that he can’t remember his votes, even worse that Kudlow noted he had voted against reform, whilst Thompson said that he had also voted in favour of it too. Flip-flop anyone?
June 9th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Even though Thompson doesn’t remember it, he did vote against tort reform. He said he did so because of federalism, without recognizing that for tort reform to be effective it has to be done everywhere or else you get our current system. American businesses spend more money defending against lawsuits than they do on R&D. Thompson is wrong on the issue either way, but if he is wrong because he doesn’t understand the why it has to be national it is one thing, if he sides with trial lawyers then that makes it a whole different ballgame.
I’m glad he is finally getting in because he needs to give real answers not these less than artful dodges like, I don’t remember that vote or my staffer filled it out. Lucky for Thompson he didn’t start talking about what he would do in the TN house on this issue like he did on abortion. Larry Kudlow might not have cut him off before he finished saying he thinks that at the state level there shouldn’t be restrictions.
Alright I’m just kidding about the last part, but so far Thompson hasn’t been clear enough to really know for sure.
He needs to lead and say this is how things need to be instead of being so vague. I hope that when he does announce he starts talking more specifics, not vague generalities that we have heard so far.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Here is part of the transcript:
Larry Kudlow: How would you go after, I know these are complex subjects and we don’t have time, so if you can just give a thought or two
Fred Thompson: They’re pretty complex for a fellow who hasn’t announced for, ah, anything, ah, Larry
Larry Kudlow: The issue is Tort Reform. You voted against limitations to, ah, tort reform settlements, class action lawsuit penalties. That’s a huge issue in the US Business community. A lot of American business is going over seas in search of a less punitive, ah, class action system. Some of your critics say it is because you used to be a trial lawyer.
Fred Thompson: Yeah
Larry Kudlow: why did you vote against tort Reform?
Fred Thompson: I can’t wait to get back to trying those intersection collision cases, ah, Larry, but, ah, no, the one, several of those issues, I don’t remember that particular one, I, I, voted for class action reform, ah, ah, I know on a couple of different occasions, because I consider that to be a national issue
Larry Kudlow: Well you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudglow: you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well well the..
Larry Kudlow: which is really the heart of the matter
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudlow: ..as you know venue shopping has been one of the big issues with the trial lawyers
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: they all want to go to Madison county.
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: so they can get outrageous settlements
Fred Thompson: let me give you an answer that covers, I think, every one of those so called tort reform, ah, votes, ah, there have been things that have been the purview of the states for two-hundred years, and ah, for ah, Washington, ah, and in one case the Judiciary committee to sit and calculate attorneys fees, appropriate attorney’s fees, negotiated on the state level is preposterous for one thing and is against the principles of federalism, ah, ah, ah, on another level. I had a couple of 99 to 1 votes where I was the one vote where mom and apple pie kind of things were, ah, were, were, put forward, because they felt like it was a good idea to federalize those traditional state things, and without commenting on the merits of the case I just said the federal government can not do what it is supposed to be doing competently now, were, were, were, rife with, with, inabilities from ah, ah, computer technology, to ah, ah, our people, people passing an audit, but the federal government hasn’t passed one, ah, ah, for 10 years so why keep arrogating these type of responsibilities to Washington DC with some kind of a so called fix, ah, when we are ah, supposed to be, ah, federal system under the constitution, and if you got a problem with state, you know, this is a competitive system out there, and a lot of other states out there, and the competition is, ah, is a good thing among the states and some times you even get some innovation among the states.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Do you have a take on it Jason?
June 10th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Fred finds out that answering specific questions is tougher than writing columns and making radio speeches. And that he has some baggage in the Senate he will have to explain, discard and/or apologize for.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:04 am
My opinion is ditto that of Gamecocks.
If Giuliani or McCain won I could enthusiastically volunteer for them come generals- more so McCain. Not so sure about Thompson, he hasn’t struck me as quite the talent.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
That clip made me feel really good about Thompson in the white house, as I was a little less certain previously. I think he’s spot on with his views of federalism and its importance. I wish more people would talk like that ( and not just a cop out to why they support abortion.)
June 10th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Fred is a politician emeritus. He looks like a guy who has retired and is now having a hard time getting back to work.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Wow, Jason enthusiastically campaigning for Rudy?
June 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Of course, there are some great things about him, plus I do happen to be a Republican. I wouldn’t be enthusiastic winning the nomination, but I would be enthusiastic about him winning the white house.
McCain, Giuliani, Romney are all solid. Huckabee maybe, Brownback, nice guy, lousy candidate. Fred Thompson? Not impressed, he doesn’t seem to be the talent of the top three.
June 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I agree with Jason,
As a Party we will need to pull together after it is clear who our nominee will be. I strongly support Rudy but also think that Romney would be a good second choice. While I would support Fred if he wins the nomination, I do think that he is the weakest of the top four candidates.
Do we really want to select the weakest of our top four candidates to take on Hillary in the general election?
June 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I think Fred is potentially weaker than some of the second tier candidates.
No offense to the Fred supporters but his candidacy seems based on the weak conservative credentials of the Three Amigos (McCain, Rudy and Romney).
I’m not seeing a positive reason why Fred Thompson should be President. All I see are candidates already running that have some work to do before they’re ready for the Republican base.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Alright, this has been the top post for a day and a half; time for some new posts.
DaveG? HeavyM? Kavon? Anyone..?
June 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
By the way — I agree about pulling together as a party…with a few exceptions.
I would campaign enthusiastically for Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. I think there are fantastic elements about all of them. Romney, I’m not sure if I could volunteer for, even in the face of Edwards, Obama, or Hillary. I just don’t think we should have to settle for Romney, and I think we could emerge with someone great after four years of hell under a Democratic administration — why settle for a man like Romney?
June 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I agree— Giuliani/Thompson with McCain as SecDef or SecState would make an exceptional ticket.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Kris — I agree, and believe that if they announced *in advance* what their administration plans would be, it could make things very interesting. McCain would make a great Defense Secretary! Giuliani/Thompson — I like, I like.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I’m wary of Fred saying that he’s a Federalist but then saying the states should handle abortion as if it didn’t effect the nation as a whole. I also didn’t like his indecision about whether abortion should be criminalized or not.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
My question is (and someone may have the answer) if you are going to make abortion illegal how will it be any effect if you can’t criminalize the doctors? I just can’t read no criminalization as anything but keeping it legal.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy— I like your style!
June 10th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I am not making this transcript up. Every single one of the “ah”’s that I type, came out of Fred Thompson’s mouth.
Larry Kudlow: How would you go after, I know these are complex subjects and we don’t have time, so if you can just give a thought or two
Fred Thompson: They’re pretty complex for a fellow who hasn’t announced for, ah, anything, ah, Larry
Larry Kudlow: The issue is Tort Reform. You voted against limitations to, ah, tort reform settlements, class action lawsuit penalties. That’s a huge issue in the US Business community. A lot of American business is going over seas in search of a less punitive, ah, class action system. Some of your critics say it is because you used to be a trial lawyer.
Fred Thompson: Yeah
Larry Kudlow: why did you vote against tort Reform?
Fred Thompson: I can’t wait to get back to trying those intersection collision cases, ah, Larry, but, ah, no, the one, several of those issues, I don’t remember that particular one, I, I, voted for class action reform, ah, ah, I know on a couple of different occasions, because I consider that to be a national issue
Larry Kudlow: Well you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudglow: you voted against some caps
Fred Thompson: well well the..
Larry Kudlow: which is really the heart of the matter
Fred Thompson: well
Larry Kudlow: ..as you know venue shopping has been one of the big issues with the trial lawyers
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: they all want to go to Madison county.
Fred Thompson: let me
Larry Kudlow: so they can get outrageous settlements
Fred Thompson: let me give you an answer that covers, I think, every one of those so called tort reform, ah, votes, ah, there have been things that have been the purview of the states for two-hundred years, and ah, for ah, Washington, ah, and in one case the Judiciary committee to sit and calculate attorneys fees, appropriate attorney’s fees, negotiated on the state level is preposterous for one thing and is against the principles of federalism, ah, ah, ah, on another level. I had a couple of 99 to 1 votes where I was the one vote where mom and apple pie kind of things were, ah, were, were, put forward, because they felt like it was a good idea to federalize those traditional state things, and without commenting on the merits of the case I just said the federal government can not do what it is supposed to be doing competently now, were, were, were, rife with, with, inabilities from ah, ah, computer technology, to ah, ah, our people, people passing an audit, but the federal government hasn’t passed one, ah, ah, for 10 years so why keep arrogating these type of responsibilities to Washington DC with some kind of a so called fix, ah, when we are ah, supposed to be, ah, federal system under the constitution, and if you got a problem with state, you know, this is a competitive system out there, and a lot of other states out there, and the competition is, ah, is a good thing among the states and some times you even get some innovation among the states.
Notice this is all one sentence. He never finishes his idea, but keeps tacking stuff on. Is it something to be proud that the senate voted on things and it was 99 to 1? I mean if you are right about an important issue, is Fred Thompson really the only one in the senate who saw the truth of the issue? When he started talking about vague random mom and apple pie stuff, that had nothing to do with the question, I was dumbfounded. Oh my gosh, what a dork. Am I listening to Bill Clinton here, or is he going to answer the question? He is just making stuff up. We don’t want lawyers coming up with innovative ways of suing companies do we? What is he talking about?
Larry Kudlow: how
Fred Thompson: in fact that is where welfare reform came from So, ah, you know we got to be a little bit careful if we are true to our principals, that when it comes to some subject matter ah, that we feel strongly about that it’s not, ah, just another an answer that we feel strongly about it, the question is whether, the question is at what level of government it should be dealt with.
Hillary would eat this guy for lunch, what does this have to do with anything? No wonder he is afraid to debate Rudy, McCain, and Romney.
Larry Kudlow: Sometimes states are really bad laboratories, sort of killing off the animals that they are testing and guess I have to ask you
Fred Thompson: Well there is not very
Larry Kudlow: let me just ask this question because businessmen are really interested in this, how would you as a president Thompson either cap these lawsuit penalties or perhaps more to the point stop frivolous lawsuits, weather its securities lawsuits or medical malpractice lawsuits, or asbestos lawsuits, that literally put thousands of businesses, 10s of thousands of workers out of work and just muck up the whole capitalist system. How do you stop that sir?
Fred Thompson: Larry in state after state, and you know after leaving their little communities getting in their car, driving past their state capital, getting to the airport, flying to Washington DC, to get Washington DC to do something about something that happened in their locality there, in that regard, with regard to tort reform, state after state took it on themselves as they should to change outrageous, ah, ah, supreme court members who, ah, who, ah, were doing ah, things that were ah, in the trial lawyer’s pockets and things like that and they went to the voters and got changes made. (Lets start naming the only states that would vote for you). In Mississippi, in Alabama, in Texas and a number of states it just shows that it works the easy solution often times is to go to the federal government now there is there is certain things that without question, that ah, have become nationalized because, ah, globalization and the communication and transportation changes in our society , but you have to take a new look at it, you have to have a federal response to legitimate federal issues, but I think the first thing we often do sometimes, as conservatives, supposedly, is jump to the, ah, to the, ah, unilateral federal, ah, option, ah, before you give the states the responsibility. You can’t say that you believe in freedom ah, ah, ah, with regard to someone, ah, as long as someone does what you want them to do.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
hay ThatLibertarianGuy: Yeah, why settle for a republican governor who was able to win in the most democratic state in the union, balance a 3 billion dollar budget deficit, leave a 2.3 billion dollar rainy day fund? Why would you settle for someone with a Harvard MBA and Law degree, and graduated at the top of his class when you could have someone like McCain who graduated at the very bottom of his west point class? Why would you settle for someone who worked out a program with state police, so they could arrest illegal immigrants? Why would you settle for someone who vetoed. Why would business republicans who believe in the free market pick a guy with the word “capitalist” in his job title (venture capitalist). Why would people pick someone who was able to provide a 103% return on investment for those who invested in his company? Why pick a guy who was able to start hundred of companies, and turn around hundred of more companies? Why pick a guy would would charge major corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars, so he could tell them what to do to fix their businesses? Yeah, he sounds like a looser… I couldn’t support Mitt either… Your very smart “ThatLibertarianGuy” we should all listen to you!
June 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Mike,
I’d rather someone who has a belief system then someone who creates a belief system
in the name of political expediency. Your man, Romney, has some serious issues that he will have to eventually address. He is not the second choice of most Republicans, and will tank if he is unable to take both Iowa and New Hampshire
Compared to Thompson, McCain and Giuliani. Romney has the most to lose.
His 10-13% national rating is going to be his absolute peak, so really
try not to get too excited.
I hope a second-tier takes him down at Amnes.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Kris,
First people laughed that Romney was not over single didgets in Key states like NH and MI where he is known. Now he is winning those states along with Iowa. They used to mock him because he couildn’t get over 5%, then over 8-9 now it’s 10-13.
It used to be little bump Romney hit he was over.
Now we see Romney is stronger than ever and when he puts his time into more of a national strategy he will climb as well. So far, history and time is on the side of my argument.
Your last paragraph explains your third one.
June 10th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I’m not mocking Romney, my opinion is based upon logic. If you are the only guy currently
going ahead with multi-million dollar advertising in a select few states, then sure…
you are going to gain short-term traction.
Jason, you haven’t seen anything from Giuliani or McCain yet. Fast-forward to November, every man
and his dog will be on the airwaves putting their message accross.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:47 am
First-mover advantage applies here.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Mike, the only way Romney was able to win was by talking like the lib at heart that he is.