The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 11)

/p> p>I was brought up in the '50s and '60s knowing that all Republicans were stupid and corrupt. Voting in my 1st Presidential election in 1972 I voted for McGovern. I of course avidly watched the Watergate hearing. While watching the Senate hearings I first saw that Republicans might not be as I thought. The man who started me on the road to rethinking all my youthful ideas was Fred Thompson, the Senate Watergate Committee's chief minority counsel. I didn't change overnight but his performance during those hearings made a lasting impression, here was a Statesman. In the '70s I went from a radical leftist to a libertarian and then a Reagan Republican. One thing that hasn't changed for me is Fred Thompson is still a Statesman. br> -- Geoff Bowden br> Battle Creek, Michigan /p>

Two points, please, about the conservatism, or not, of Fred Thompson. First, about the abortion issue. If my memory serves, Senator Thompson was against a constitutional amendment, not for abortion rights. That is precisely the view that I take. This is NOT because I think that abortion ought to be unfettered, I would be perfectly happy to see it banned except for the LIFE of the mother. I simply do not think that the Constitution addresses any such right, and I do not think that the issue should be one that is incorporated within the Constitution. Let the states deal with it as they see fit. I would be perfectly happy to support a federal statute banning federal funding of any abortions, but let us keep it out of the Constitution itself. That fine document already contains added provisions that ought to be stripped out on the basis of unsuitability to be dealt with within the founding documents of the nation.

Secondly, the campaign reform issue. If the bill before the Congress and President had been a simply limiting, or capping of both soft and hard monies to political candidates, I could have lived with it. I would have preferred a simple transparency bill that would have allowed all to know who gave how much to what campaign and/or issue/candidate advocacy group. What I definitely do not like is the incumbent protection features of the act, especially the narrowing of the First Amendment rights. I would be very happy to hear Senator Thompson expound on his views, and why he voted as he did at the time, and what he now thinks in light of experience with the bill as implemented.

As for the other candidates already zeroing in on Fred, he should internalize the phrase that served St. Ronald of Reagan so well, particularly against the Dems. You know the one, "There you go again." It was a totally good natured put down that served in all situations and was completely understood by the American voting public, and made his opponent's carping seem like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

p>Run, Fred, run. br> -- Ken Shreve br> New Hampshire /p>

Fred Thompson should enter the race. The candidates who need to worry are Mrs. Clinton and the left's favorite "closet Muslim" Barack Hussein Obama. Thompson has an ability to communicate that rivals the best D.C has to offer. It is easy to see him trouncing Mrs. Clinton and Imam Obama in debates. As for his GOP rivals Giuliani or Romney would make excellent vice presidential candidates. They might help the ticket in the Francophile, anti-military, pro-terrorist appeasement Northeast.

topics:
Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Conservatism