The Candidates
Featured Archives
Yesterday the declared Republican candidates all issued statements regarding the Supreme Court?s decision on issue ads under the much criticized McCain Feingold campaign finance reform statute. In many ways the responses were illustrative of the candidates? general approach to tough issues.
Senator McCain to his credit did not avoid a politically sensitive issue and stood by his position, stating: ?While I respect their decision in this matter, it is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election. It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.? Although this position is at odds the lion share of conservative bloggers and commentators, McCain, as he has done on immigration, was sticking to his guns. It may do him no good but he is not about to duck the issue.
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani issued statements applauding the decision. Romney made no mention of prior support of campaign finance reform but his ringing endorsement of the Court?s decision was clearly welcome news to the conservative base which seems less concerned with consistency than with vocal support for their favored positions. Giuliani delayed comment until he had actually read the opinion and only after a review issued a careful statement making clear that on this point ? issue ads in the heat of campaigns? he sided with the Supreme Court. As he did on partial birth abortion he seems to be taking reasoned steps which strengthen his position with conservatives without a wholesale repudiation of prior views.
But the most striking statement was the one not made. Where was Fred Thompson? As a proponent of the measure and one of its key legislative supporters his silence was curious. Our request for comment or clarification on his position was not answered. He can not, as he has done on tax or health policy, claim he has not had time (or his aides have not had time) to formulate a position. He after all was one of those responsible for the legislation. Is he reversing course? Will he stick to his guns as McCain has done despite the political consequences? The excuse that he is only ?testing the waters? hardly seems adequate for an author of the legislation and a candidate claiming he is prepared to lead. It is time we heard from him.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Fred has no history of stepping up to the plate and providing leadership – this is just another example of it. He’s “testing the waters” to see what kind of flak the other candidates get from their positions, then he’ll make a statement is politically correct. The man is an actor – not a leader.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Old Fred, will have to start answering the tough questions.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Fred’s silence is why I believe he is not person to lead this country. He may be a good candidate who can win (I have my doubts), but when we vote for President we want someone who can lead and right now I don’t see that from Fred….
June 26th, 2007 at 9:52 am
[...] DIGG_URL==’string’?DIGG_URL:window.location.href); document.write(”"); } )() Jennifer Rubin, over at Race42008, wrote a summary of the 2008 candidate responses to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision. At one point, she [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I agree with all the above comments. Thank you Ms. Rubin for having the guts to ask questions when increasingly in the GOP you are labeled a “liberal” for questioning the would be “conservative savior.”
June 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am
UGADawg,
You’re not kidding. I got kicked off a Free Republic for echoing similar statements and I’ve posted comments there from time to time over two years. This “It’s got to be Fred” nonsense is apalling. I want to see him fail, not only because he is too “Bushy” but because I want to see those lemmings have to deal with new blood in the GOP.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Fred will wear out quickly. There’s no way he can hold on to the poll numbers that he has now. He just doesn’t have enough depth to keep people interested. He will be in the second tier before the end of this year.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Adam and UGADawg,
While Jennifer Rubin is earning high marks for her willingness to ask to right questions, what’s amazing about the lynch mob mentality over at Free Republic is that her questions aren’t even controversial. The same folks who’ve been complaining for years about CFR are now dying to support Fred. They don’t even want him to justify his consistent opposition to their supposed convictions on the topic?
The (conservative) Supreme Court’s repudiation of FDT’s position is met with…silence.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Fredo,
Another frustrating thing about the FR folks is that they are so fantastically out of touch that it’s laughable. Many on the site are trying to claim that Thompson has these fantastic oratory skills and they compare him to Reagan. He’s no Reagan. Since we’re on the subject, even Reagan wouldn’t be today what he’s been built up to be (though I still think he was the greatest president in the last 75 years). I have yet to see him give an unscripted speech that has any kind of fire. He seems like a tired old man to me. What are those people thinking? And why is it such heresy to not go along with the “it has to be Fred” mentality? Free Republic has gotten to be no better at tolerating dissent than those kook Democrat websites. And it’s a shame.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I agree with the comment that says Fred is too “Bushy”. This is exactly why Romney or Rudy is the best shot for our party and for the country. The American people do not want another “Bushy”. They are looking for competent, atriculate, forward-thinking leadership. I just do see that coming from Fred and I see too Much Bush.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Jennifer,
Your third paragraph is completely backwards.
Romney has never supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He has never supported the free speech blackout periods prior to elections. He has consistently criticized such an approach, and always favored more transparency in politics.
Rudy himself claimed to be a “big supporter” of McCain-Feingold back in his aborted Senate race against Hillary Clinton. As far as I know, he has done nothing but sing the praises of McCain-Feingold in the past. Now that he has changed his opinion and come to agree with the majority of the GOP concerning the 1st amendment, I would like to hear him admit his past position and explain the change.
Nonsense. Rudy’s reversal on PBA is a COMPLETE repudiation of his prior views. He has not yet admitted to the facts of the public record, which are, he opposed previous Partial Birth Abortion Bans even when they contained a provision for the life of the mother. And while I am always ready to welcome someone with open arms when they realize their past error, I would like to hear him admit his past position and explain the change.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am
[...] Jennifer Rubin, over at Race42008, wrote a summary of the 2008 candidate responses to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision. At one point, she said: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani issued statements applauding the decision. Romney made no mention of prior support of campaign finance reform but his ringing endorsement of the Court’s decision was clearly welcome news to the conservative base which seems less concerned with consistency than with vocal support for their favored positions. Giuliani delayed comment until he had actually read the opinion and only after a review issued a careful statement making clear that on this point – issue ads in the heat of campaigns– he sided with the Supreme Court. As he did on partial birth abortion he seems to be taking reasoned steps which strengthen his position with conservatives without a wholesale repudiation of prior views. [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Murphy
Jennifer Rubin has never liked Mitt. Almost everything I read of hers has a little dig about Mitt, or it is completely incorrect.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:19 am
theres a lot to dig at over a lifetime flipflopper
June 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
KT, do you appreciate the irony of your #14 in a thread where the candidate doing the flipping was not McCain nor Romney, but your guy Rudy?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
[...] instance, Jennifer Rubin’s report on the SCOTUS decision overturning restrictions on third-party campaign ads suggested that [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Fred Thompson has been an enormous disappointment to me. In fact, I’m becoming fairly pessimistic about the race in general. It’s a sad state of affairs when a candidate you couldn’t vote for under any circumstances (Rudy in this case), is very nearly your second choice.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Romney’s About-Face on Campaign Funding
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html
June 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Right you are, M.T. Pundits who don’t let their bias cloud the facts of the public record are worth their weight in gold.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The Candidates on Campaign Finance
by National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru
Romney, it turns out, has —surprise, surprise— been on both sides of campaign-finance reform. In his 1994 race, Romney came out for banning political action committees, limiting spending on federal races (something the Supreme Court has not allowed), and opposed allowing larger contributions. All told, those positions place him to the left of McCain-Feingold, which doubled the allowable size of individual donations to candidates. In his 2002 race, he took the position that campaign contributions should be taxed at a 10 percent race, with the proceeds going to public funding of all campaigns.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWExN2NkNjdkNDYxNDM1MGUxNzE2YzU2ZDI0MWE0MTg=
June 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“Jennifer Rubin has never liked Mitt. Almost everything I read of hers has a little dig about Mitt, or it is completely incorrect.”
So Jennifer Rubin has never liked Mitt, therefore should be ignored, but when it comes to Thompson, she’s right on? Even though she’s been bashing him for the last month?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Tommy,
If you have a problem with your candidate & Ms. Rubin…that’s fine. I happen to think she’s wrong about Mitt. Maybe she’s wrong about Fred too. I never said she was right on about Fred!
June 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I don’t have a problem with Ms. Rubin. I have a problem with everybody jumping to conclusions, regardless of the outcomes. Let the race play out!
June 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Mitt in 1994…
Campaign Finance-Flop Video
http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/02/cooler-exclusive-campaign-finance-flop.html
June 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I also have a problem when a reporter writes a knock on one candidate, that candidate says they’re wrong. While if that reporter writes about another candidate, they jump on while the fires hot. This place is supposed to be levelheaded.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
-that candidate’s supporters says she’s wrong.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Actually, MT. As I read back on teh comments, it wasn’t so much directed at you as it is at everybody else jumping in
June 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Citing a previous thread by Jason:
James Bopp, the pro-life lawyer extraordinaire and unpaid adviser to Mitt Romney, has a great piece about Romney and McCain-Feingold…
http://race42008.com/2007/06/06/james-bopp-jr-on-romney-and-mccain-feingold/
June 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Aron,
Seems like you are trying to muddy the waters between campaign finance in general and the McCain-Feingold provision overturned by SCOTUS?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Aron,
Absurd characterizations of Romney’s position on campaign finance reform all around. Campaign finance reform does not equal McCain/Feingold. McCain/Feingold is simply one type of campaign finance reform, and whether or not Romney’s prior proposals are to the “left” of McCain/Feingold or not, they differ in critical respects. In particular, they did not represented the sort of blatant disrespect of freedom of speech that the 30 and 60 day issue restrictions in McCain’s bill did. This is NOT a small difference. Indeed, that provision is the fundamental reason for conservative opposition. I, as a conservative, would have no problem with the sort of taxes on contributions Romney proposed in 2002 for instance. I think a disappointment with the extent to which money rules politics, is not a liberal emotion: it is evident in all but the most ardent of partisans. The only question is, to what extent do we express that disappointment, and whether we’re willing to destroy constitutional safeguards to do so. Romney has never supported the latter, while McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson have through their support of McCain/Feingold. End of story.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Tommy,
I like Fred. Great movie star. My problem with him is that he looks like he needs a nap! I just don’t think he is up to the task. He even said that he went back to acting because of the long hours in the Senate. But if he is our nominee….I will vote for him. I won’t stay home or vote for another party, like many others say they would do if Mitt were in the general.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Here’s something that needs clarified from Rudy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STk06Flnixo
Calls himself a “big supporter” of McCain-Feingold, said he’d vote for it if he were in the Senate.
Now all of a sudden he’s in favor of the SCOTUS ruling… just like on PBA? Interesting…
June 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
MT. That’s fine. I didn’t mean to call you out. I was using your quote to point out to a few others on here that they are real quick to jump all over a reporters biased when it’s against their candidate, and embrace her when she attacks someone else.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Everyone,
The original bill didn’t end up being what it was supposed to be. A lot of politicians supported campaign finance, and this bill, and were ultimately disappointed. Because a candidate hasn’t commented yet on something that is not the highest priority on most’s agenda hardly means their not being a leader. Let everyone cool off and look at things objectively.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Or because Rudy originally supported it and now backs down from it is hardly major news that will affect their supporters.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Tommy,
I’m interested to hear Fred’s response. No sweat off my back if he gets back to us Wednesday instead of Monday. What matters to me is his position, and to hear him explain why he championed McCain-Feingold (despite amendments), why he was wrong, and why he changed.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
My question is that if Fred’s excuse is that the original bill didn’t end up being what it was supposed to be then why did he continue to support it until it passed? Why did he push it ahead when he saw that there were flaws?
June 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Murphy and Matt,
Don’t shoot the messenger.
My name is neither Ramesh Ponnuru nor Alexander Bolton, and it is their characterizations, not mine, that should concern supporters of Romney.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Tommy,
Fred voted for the final version of McCain/Feingold. The final version included the issue ad restrictions (30 day, 60 day, etc). It’s not a question of whether or not the bill was successful or not. The bill wasn’t bad or unconstitutional because it failed to accomplish it’s goals, or because it’s provisions were ineffectual, but rather because the means employed to achieve those goals were unconstitutional. It was a bad bill because it restricted free speech, and if Thompson was willing to support the restriction of free speech, only on the condition that such restrictions produced desirable results, then he ought to be ashamed of himself.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Murphy,
Go check his past interviews. He’s stated where he currently stands on it repeatedly.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Aron,
No offense, but that’s weak.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Tommy,
As Matt mentioned in #38, the only thing I’ve ever heard Fred regret is that McCain-Feingold wasn’t more effective. That’s completely dodging the issue of free speech restrictions, which he supported.
If Fred has seen the error of his free-speech-squashing ways, THAT would be news of interest to me.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I agree with you Mat, I’m also becoming pessimistic about the race.
I like Romney, if only for his competence and current conservative views. He’ll get things done. But almost no one but Mormons gravitate to him naturally. He’s getting some general support, and strong support in early States, but he has to earn it the hard, expensive way.
Rudy alienates the social conservatives, so not an option for me (as I’ve said before, I’m out if he’s in).
And Fred? Leaders are supposed to inspire us, not the other way around. I fear if he wins we may have to set up “Motivate Fred†sessions right up to the general, just to keep him in this thing. Go Fred! You can do it; you’ll make a great President!! Really? You think I can? I don’t know if they’ll support me. Oh, look at the poll numbers, maybe I really should do this. Not exactly reassuring.
The perfect candidate for me is Huckabee and his authenticity, with Romney’s smarts, fiscal views, work ethic and communication skills and a pinch of Rudy’s Ruthlessness. A pipe dream really.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Check his writings and his interviews with Bill Bennett and H&C here to get his positions.
http://www.fredthompsonfaq.com
June 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Speaking of clarity:
Open Borders McCain and Samnesty Brownback just voted for cloture on the comprehensively bad immigration biil.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Tommy,
Well, you don’t shy away from the record. I consider that a major point in your favor, and something worth emulating. Now, on to that faq link:
The jist of this sounds like Fred is an honest guy who wants to fix a problem. However, as Matt mentioned in #38, Fred seems to be backing away from McCain-Feingold for less than ideal reasons. It’s great that he’s moving in favor of public transparency (the Romney position), but an effective unconstitutional law is no better than an ineffective unconstitutional law.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
The difference is that he those articles are old. He’s been saying this is a bad law months before this ruling. Why should he say it again? By not jumping on the bash McCain bandwagon while I supported the original bill, it shows a little of what I want to see… someone not using the time right now to jump on the bandwagon. He’ll probably address it tomarrow at his speech in South Carolina.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The fact that McCain-Feingold is “bad” law in the sense of being counter-productive is self evident. Fred is frustrated that the law didn’t work, but doesn’t show any concern for the unconstitutional methods that he supported to achieve his goals.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“Enough Is Enoughâ€
A win for free speech.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzM2ODI5YWM2Y2M1MDIwZjEzNWU3MDMyM2Y3YmRkODg=
By John Samples, Director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute
June 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Good article
June 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/thompson_once_opposed_sham_iss_1.php
Thompson filed a brief saying that issue ads were shams and shouldn’t be allowed.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
[...] “As a proponent of the measure and one of its key legislative supporters his silence was curious. Our request for comment or clarification on his position was not answered. He can not, as he has done on tax or health policy, claim he has not had time (or his aides have not had time) to formulate a position. He after all was one of those responsible for the legislation. Is he reversing course? Will he stick to his guns as McCain has done despite the political consequences? The excuse that he is only “testing the waters†hardly seems adequate for an author of the legislation and a candidate claiming he is prepared to lead. It is time we heard from him.” Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 6:04 am
the conservative base which seems less concerned with consistency than with vocal support for their favored positions
Or, to put it more fairly, the conservative base is less concerned with consistency across time without ever revising positions and is more concerned with consistency at a time and correctness in the present.