(Page 2 of 3)
p>Something else Thompson wasn't warm to was piles of soft money and the kind of anything-goes fundraising that President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were undertaking back in the 1990s. That's why he supported McCain-Feingold. He explained it this way on Fox News Sunday several weeks ago: br> /p>THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.br> Thompson has been straight enough to say that what he voted for -- and President Bush signed into law -- hasn't worked out so well. Would he do it again? It would appear not, but that's something Thompson will have to detail on his own.I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing.
So that's not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.
"But the fact that these other campaigns are focusing on a guy who isn't even in the race is remarkable to me," says a political consultant who is nonaligned in the race. "Romney ought to be focusing more in his own problems and less on distinguishing himself from someone else. When you're at three percent in the national polls, that's the kind of advice someone should be giving him."
p> TOMMY br> The decision by former Wisconsin governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is considered a headscratcher by a number of Republicans. Thompson, a Roman Catholic, who has been good on life issues and is married to an ex-nun, has kept a low profile since leaving the Bush Administration.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.