Fred's equivocal conservatism.
By DGaines Posted in 2008 — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred’s equivocal conservatism.
It has been difficult to write this article because Fred is my second choice behind Huck. That said I have found it equally difficult to see Huck repeatedly bludgeoned for his various policy changes, record inconsistencies and the fact that he appeals to evangelical voters. While I suspect that this diary will be unpleasant to most who support Fred and while I don’t think it will change anyone’s mind. In the interests of balance and my mea culpa made, I spew it forth. *cough*
Is Fred Pro Life? Has he always been? The simple answer is no.
Here is a 1994 survey filled out by Fred during his senate run in which he goes on the record in favor of first trimester abortions. Voter guide here
Here is Fred on Youtube talking about the abortion issue during the same campaign. See Fred on abortion here
Has Fred always been conservative on immigration issues? It depends on how you define ‘conservative’.
Next is one excerpt of Fred on immigration and demonstrates the kind of ambivalence and unsurety that Fred has previously expressed on this issue: Fred on immigration here:
What about McCain-Feingold – called by many the “incumbent protection plan” Fred was critical to the bills success and passage. The bill is widely considered to be aimed at muzzling conservative organizations and PACs. Watch here
Next is John McCain talking about how critical Thompson was to getting this bill passed: McCain on Fred here
More on Fred’s involvement in McCain-Feingold here: More of the story here
Fred is generally considered pro gun, not nearly so much as some other candidates like Huck but Fred did vote pro gun over 50% of the time. His erswhile anti gun leanings and votes available here: See the record here
More information here on Fred's gun record here: More here
Fred Thompson the consummate Federalist and small government man voted for a huge unfunded mandate on the states: “no child left behind” Vote available here: See vote here
Finally, many here have jumped on Huck for citing his executive experience and pointing out that Fred didn’t do all that much in the Senate. Here is Fred in his own words: Fred on Fred here
In closing let me say that I recognize that much of how we measure conservatism is not an absolute but a measure of degree. Many will argue that if Fred has some problems, others have more and I take no issue with that perspective. In addition I will vote for Fred if Huck withdraws from the race. If Fred is already out I will vote for Mitt.
However I think it is important that we all remove our rose colored glasses so decisions can be made without the fog of misinformation and hypocrisy. If we delude ourselves too much, we become like the liberals where truth doesn’t matter, only obfuscation and rhetoric.
If you want to take a good look at why many are voting for Mike Huckabee, or if you are undecided and want to examine a candidate who not only inspires people but has proposed the most innovative and far reaching solutions to the issues America faces then check out this blog entry from a guy who represented him in Michigan.
View blog here or check out a fun video highlighting just a few of Mike's great points. View Video here
Because everyone knows that FMA is the only issue in the social conservative agenda.
Obviously it is not as evidenced by the number of social conservative groups that have endorsed Fred.
Issue #1 is abortion. Every single prominent pro-family social conservative organization supports FMA.
It's populist.
The author didn't forget anything.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
issue. I personally agree with you that it is a conservative issue but I wanted to highlight some of the other areas where Fred has been less than conservative.
It's what they believe. No need to attack someone's belief personally. They believe what they believe.
Fred has responded to criticism of his record, while Mike denies, makes jokes, and otherwise obvuscates the issues.
I am a Fred supporter, but I fully admit that Fred looks so good primarily because the field exhibits flaws that are quite clear to see.
Unlike Mike, Fred has NEVER:
(1) implied that people who want to have better control over the border are racists
(2) justified tax increases using the language of the left (raising hope)
(3) attacked U.S. foreign policy from the left (e.g. bunker mentality)
(4) responded to criticism of his record by saying the individual needs a medical product
(5) answered a purely serious question with a 100% joke response
This is why most conservatives I know find McCain and Huckabee so utterly distasteful----they use the language of the left to attack the conservative position. Fred has NEVER used the language of the left in ANY of the issues raised in your post.
I considered Huckabee until I heard him make the comment about CEO pay. I precluded ever voting for Huckabee in the primary when I heard his comment about "looking like the guy you work with rather than looking like guy who layed you off" ---Is there anything conservative about this? Not only is it not conservative, it is actually lacking in any substance whatsoever.
In summary, take the plank out of Huckabee's eyes before reaching out to remove the speck in Thompson's eyes.
Fred has NEVER used the language of the left in ANY of the issues raised in your post.
Did you not see Fred on Meet the Press, where even RedStaters derided his left-leaning comments on abortion?
abortion, and instead would focus on the doctor is not using the language of the left to attack---it is saying what he supports and does not support.
He is defining what his position is. He is NOT characterizing people who disagreem with the position (e.g. racist, bunker mentality, etc)
Then about 90% of the country is "on the left" on this issue. If you aren't really considered pro-life if you don't want to see women going to prison for 20 years for seeking an abortion, you aren't going to find very many people on your side. You really don't want to draw the line there.
The language of the left is about women having "the right to choose" and "control over their own body" and having plenty of "birth control options." I haven't heard any of that from Fred.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
is the kind of inflammatory thing lefties say to skew the debate with emotional rhetoric. I don't know any mainstream social conservative who has ever or will ever advocate that women go to prison for an abortion. The left has made a business of using such language to frame the debate as the evil, uncaring conservatives against the kind hearted lefties who 'care' about women.
I'm not saying Fred meant it, only that he said it.
This is also commonly done by lefties with other issues. I'm sure you've seen it.
That's exactly how much time they'd get. Most pro-lifers don't want to treat abortion exactly like murder. But that's what would happen under the version of the HLA that gives 14th amendment rights to fetuses. So this is a perfectly valid argument against the HLA. I would not support that version of the HLA for that very reason. I think Roe needs to be overturned and the battle for bans and restrictions needs to be fought at the state level.
BTW, Huckabee has made similar comments, even going so far as to call the women who seek abortions victims... but he supports some version of the HLA he won't specify, so I guess that's OK.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
close.
Bottom line, Fred is a Federalist. Period.
For this conservative Republican, it is a refreshing breath of fresh air.
The federal government needs to get back to the business of protecting our nation and defending our borders. For the most part, they should leave the rest to the states, as was originally intended per our Constitution.
Fred gets this. Most do not.
Huckabee definitely does not.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
And Huck has not. (Is metamucil a medical product?)
One clear example is his well known response to the abortion question in which Fred parroted the language of the left.
executive experience) Fred answers the question regarding what's the best thing he has done in the Senate by saying he left. I can site some other examples if you want me to take the time.
Allows touchback provision:
Huckabee’s comments on his immigration plan:
“But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.”
Mike Huckabee Touchback Amnesty illegal aliens back in days!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jKeWIrlzLw#GU5U2spHI_4
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html
WALLACE: But last year in an interview, you said something somewhat different. You said this, “I think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship.” Governor, in your new plan, the only path is to go home and to get on the back of the line, which, of course, would mean years of waiting. Why the change?
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think there’s an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn’t say what the pathway was.
I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept — and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense — is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.
But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don’t agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it’s our government that has failed and is dysfunctional.
It shouldn’t take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don’t have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home.
But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.
Let me tell you why that’s important. Two reasons. Number one, the American people say, “Do something. Do it now. We don’t want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem.” I get it.
Secondly, I want people who are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they’re trying to feed their families. I don’t begrudge them that.
I say every day I thank God I’m in a country people are trying to break into, not break out of. But let’s give them a means by which they can get here through the door legally, and when they’re here they don’t have to hide, they don’t have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them, they have their heads held high.
Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to do so with dignity and with a sense of pride, not a sense of fear.
Huckabee’s comments on his immigration plan:
“But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.”
Mike Huckabee Touchback Amnesty illegal aliens back in days!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jKeWIrlzLw#GU5U2spHI_4
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html
WALLACE: But last year in an interview, you said something somewhat different. You said this, “I think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship.” Governor, in your new plan, the only path is to go home and to get on the back of the line, which, of course, would mean years of waiting. Why the change?
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think there’s an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn’t say what the pathway was.
I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept — and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense — is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.
But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don’t agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it’s our government that has failed and is dysfunctional.
It shouldn’t take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don’t have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home.
But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.
Let me tell you why that’s important. Two reasons. Number one, the American people say, “Do something. Do it now. We don’t want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem.” I get it.
Secondly, I want people who are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they’re trying to feed their families. I don’t begrudge them that.
I say every day I thank God I’m in a country people are trying to break into, not break out of. But let’s give them a means by which they can get here through the door legally, and when they’re here they don’t have to hide, they don’t have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them, they have their heads held high.
Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to do so with dignity and with a sense of pride, not a sense of fear.
Editor’s note, Sept. 1, 2005: Wayne Dumond, convicted of rape in Arkansas and murder in Missouri, died of apparent natural causes in prison Tuesday.
The occasion prompts us to republish Murray Waas’ prize-winning article for the Arkansas Times in 2002 about the extraordinary steps Gov. Mike Huckabee took to help win Dumond’s freedom. He has since blamed others for Dumond’s release to kill again, but his actions over many years demonstrated his support for Dumond and, ultimately, the instrumental role he played in the parole board’s decision to free him.”
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-f...
It wasn’t just one member that said Huckabee lobbied for Dumond’s release:
On Oct. 31, 1996, Huckabee met with the parole board. Huckabee has categorically denied that he supported the Dumond parole during the closed portion of the meeting, but four current and former board members tell the Times that Huckabee in fact did so.
The minutes of the Oct. 31, 1996, open meeting provide no detail as to what transpired.
The minutes simply state: “Governor Mike Huckabee and the board went into executive session. The board appreciates the governor meeting with them to discuss his and other concerns regarding criminal justice and rehabilitation and sharing his viewpoints on other issues.”
Present at the meeting were Brownlee, Chastain, Allen, Pieroni and Suttlar.
Chastain, Suttlar and two other board members who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that Huckabee made it known that he favored a commutation of Dumond’s sentence.
All four also said it was when Huckabee brought up the subject that the chairman, Brownlee, closed the meeting to the press.
They further contradicted Huckabee’s later claims that it was Chastain and not Huckabee who first raised the Dumond issue.
“It was thought to be a routine meeting,” Chastain recalled. “Huckabee said, ‘There is this one case I want to talk to you about.’ ”
Brownlee then had the board go into executive session, Chastain said. “The governor commented that Wayne Dumond had received, from his perspective, a raw deal, that he was someone from the wrong side of the tracks … and that he had received what he thought was too long a sentence for that type of crime.”
Suttlar also said Brownlee closed the meeting after Huckabee raised the Dumond case.
Huckabee and his spokesman Rex Nelson have also claimed that any mention of the Dumond matter at the October meeting was fleeting, but Chastain and other board members dispute that. They say the remarks were substantive.
Suttlar noted that just prior to Huckabee’s appearance before the board the board had voted 4-1 against Dumond’s parole. After Huckabee’s board appearance, her colleagues largely reversed themselves, voting 4-1 for Dumond’s release.
“Why did all the votes change?” Suttlar asked. The board members knew the governor’s position. And Huckabee knows what influence a governor has over a board. Who’s going to turn down a governor?”
A board member, who only agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said, “We are not talking rocket science here. The board jobs are known to some degree [to be] political patronage, and they’re not the most difficult jobs for the pay.” Board members currently earn more than $70,000 a year.
“And then there’s the most obvious: If the governor likes you, you might get to keep your job.” One board who voted for Dumond, Railey Steele, was reappointed shortly before his vote. Brownlee was reappointed by Huckabee this year.
On Aug. 29, 1996, the parole board denied Dumond parole on a 4-1 vote. Dr. Charles Chastain voted for parole; August Pieroni, Railey Steele, Fred Allen and Suttlar voted against. Brownlee didn’t vote. (Chastain’s vote was part of a board custom of giving inmates one positive vote as an encouragement for good behavior.)
On Sept. 10, 1996, the board took another vote, going 5-0 against recommending executive clemency and 5-0 against recommending an executive pardon. The no votes were cast by Steele, Brownlee, Pieroni, Suttlar and Fred Allen.
On Sept. 20, Gov. Huckabee announced his intention to commute Wayne Dumond’s sentence to time served.
The governor and his staff were unprepared for the public outcry that followed his announcement that he was likely to free Dumond.
Under state law, the governor had to wait at least 30 days — but not more than 120 — after his Sept. 20 clemency announcement to allow the public, legislators, prosecutors, and other interested parties to present their views before he made a final decision. Huckabee was required to make a decision before Jan. 20, 1997. As it turned out, the board voted four days before the deadline to parole Dumond, sparing Huckabee from the decision.
Or are you trying to be selective?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
That was in reply to Debbie.
Sorry, rented fingers.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
http://www.arkansasleader.com/2008/01/editorial-huckabee-can-rejoice.htm...
Even the right-leaning commentators tended to dismiss Huckabee as a one-state phenomenon because of the unrepresentative evangelical vote in that state, but they underestimate him and the nature of his appeal. It may speak badly of the rest of the field, but he is the glibbest and, at a surface level, the most likeable of the Republicans. No one can be sure what Mike Huckabee really stands for — he has been at some point or another in the past 10 years on different sides of just about every issue — but humor and easy grace will carry a politician a long way once people think they know him. Huckabee had a full year to define himself without much interference.
The peril for Mike Huckabee remains what it has been from the first, his inveterate inclination to fudge the truth or to lie outright, even when the truth would serve him well, and to make up facts and policy on the spot when he has neither. Candidates to be the leader of the free world must not be seen to be so rash. That weakness has been on display since the opening salvos of his campaign, when he fabricated much of his fiscal record in Arkansas, and then when he issued numerous statements that misled people on what he had done to free the rapist and murderer Wayne DuMond.
"Mike Huckabee has taken the Americans for Tax Reform pledge never to raise taxes. Fred Thompson and John McCain both refuse to do so, as they refused to vote with the GOP party and instead pushed through McCain-Feingold legislation that limited free speech and hurt conservative interest groups. "
...I'd sign it too.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
"No new taxes", stated George H. W. Bush. Fred has a great record on taxes. Compare the records of Huckabee and Fred and the difference is clear. So, if Fred signed a piece of paper, that would be more meaningful than Fred's history of voting?
Fred has said that he wouldn't raise taxes unless there was a national emergency, but to you, a signed paper is more meaningful than the person's record. I really think that no matter what Huckabee says to justify his record, you still end up supporting him. He can do no wrong.
Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted, why do they put a guarantee on a box? Hmm, very interesting.
Ted: I'm listening.
Tommy: Here's how I see it. A guy puts a guarantee on the box 'cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.
Ted: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: 'Course it does. Ya think if you leave that box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter.
Ted: What's your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy, but we're not buying it. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of s***. That's all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for right now, for your sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality item from me.
--
"If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative?" -- Rush Limbaugh (1/7/08)
The deer scene is a classic.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Does this coat make me look fat?
no, your face does
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
He's saying that a piece of paper isn't that meaningful if you don't have a record that backs it up. ;)
how can you put any confidence in this pledge? Or conversely, how can you vote for a person who agrees to sign a pledge NOT raise hope?
The pledge and the Fair Tax are ways for Mike to obvuscate on issues that don't really matter to him
Hit these themes hard for the win:
1. FMA.
2. Embryonic stem cell research.
3. Tax pledge.
I wish Huck would start making contrast ads soon.
1. Fred has supported certain formulations of an FMA -- namely, those which constitutionalize the DOMA.
2. Fred opposes embryonic stem cell research.
3. You ever hear the phrase "Actions speak louder than words"?
-
NARF
Write a blog. It's considered very bad form to go regurgitating the same thing over and over on any and every blog, especially when it's completely off topic.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
all of this throughout his campaign, unlike Huckabee I might add.
be discussed, but since I'm bored...
First of all in the YouTube video you linked to, Fred takes a stand that it's not the federal governments job to ban abortions. I see no flip-flop here, it's what he still says.
He wasn't asked if he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, which he has said should be done.
As far a the questionaire on abortion you linked to, I can see why it might cause you pause. However, a thinking person would probably take the time to further look into the reasoning behind it. It isn't the place of the federal government to make abortion legal or illegal. If you look at what Fred said in the YouTube video in conjunction with the questionaire, you'll see he's been the same all along. It's not something that can be corrected with laws, it's going to have to be done by changing the hearts and minds of the people. Look-up 'Prohibition' for further details.
As far as the anti-gun/pro-gun crud (and that's what it is), let's look a bit further into that...
Okay on the second link, he is listed as being pro-gun or anti-gun several times. If you go through and look at the laws where they actually show how he voted, you'll see some interesting things.
Number 35 - 36 Are dealing with McCain-Feingold, not gun laws.
Number 29 is a committee vote to send a bill to the full Senate. Now Fred did vote to send it to the full Senate instead of just voting to kill it in committee, but in the full Senate, he voted against it (see his vote on number 22).
Number 27 he voted for a law that would have made it illegal for teenagers to be holding, possessing, etc., any semi-automatic weapon without proper supervision, etc. I own several guns, some rifles, some handguns, I wouldn't let my nephews, nieces or cousins near a weapon without me or another properly trained individual there beside them. This is about personal responsibility and common sense, unfortunately the obituary for those two things was written in this country years ago. This law says more about the state of our nation than it does about guns.
Number 20 Now this one makes no sense. He was shown to be anti-gun by voting to end the filibuster on pro-gun legislation so it could go to a vote. HUH?
Number 19 Fred was called anti-gun for voting to confirm a 'controversial' anti-gun surgeon general. (I couldn't care less)
Number 18 Fred voted for an anti-gun judge...Okay this one I might give you, I'd have to look into it.
Number 14 on up, seem to be places where he may or may not have vote for or against these 'laws', it doesn't say, I have no opinion.
The only other one I had to disagree with, was the one with the anti-Weaver bill in it. I have a crazy father who is mean and abusive, should he be allowed guns, well in my opinion no. I'll have to look into this legislation more.
The YouTube video you linked to on immigration gives a 30 second viewpoint. It doesn't elaborate....That's like flipping through the Bible and only finding the parts you like. I will not even listen to an argument on this until a full version of the interview is made available.
McCain-Feingold has already been disavowed by Thompson.
Anything else?
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
This is crap! You ask two questions and then place "no" at the end? Just like a Huckabee supporter. How dishonest of you. Are you a Christian? Do you think Christian's conduct themselves like this? Is this what God would expect of His children? You want to disagree with Fred on the issues, fine, but as Christians, we should avoid the nasty and dishonest attacks.
I am a Christian. Fred obviously IS Pro-Life as HE IS THE ONLY ONE TO GET THE NRLC ENDORSEMENT! Don't mention that though. I would never dream of unfair attacks on Huckabee. Of course with Huckabee, there is so much populism and liberalism, there is no need.
Fred has the support of NRLC. He has a 100% PRO-LIFE VOTING RECORD!
Huckabee has received $$ from those groups that were embryonic stem cell advocates: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7836.html Fred has never supported that and has consistently voted against it at the federal level.
"Unsurity" on illegal immigration? You have got to be kidding? His voting record is consistent. His proposal is HIS OWN and has been praised across the conservative blogosphere. This is a joke right? That's the best you got on illegal immigration? I could spend hours HOURS on Huckabee's record. Giving in-state tuition to illegals ring a bell?
Fred was not critical on CFR or his name would be on it. Fred has said, since the passage of CFR, that it is wrong and if I remember correctly, Huckabee supported CFR right? You've heard about those who live in glass houses right? Fred knows that parts of CFR are wrong and wants unlimited donations with full disclosure.
As far as Fred on the 2nd amendment, you've got to be kidding. Gun owners in SC love Fred. The NRA loved Fred's speech and he has been pro 2nd amendment his entire life. The people know where he stands. You have not provided any credible unbiased resources that show Fred is not good on the 2nd amendment. If he wasn't good on this issue, we'd have heard from the NRA just as we have heard from them on Rudy.
Fred is a federalist and his voting history shows this. I'm not going to even address this.
You don't win over votes from FredHeads by attacking Fred Thompson, who NEARLY ALL CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS SAY IS THE ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE IN THIS RACE. Even NRO, who endorsed Mitt Romney, thinks Fred is the true conservative.
I would NEVER vote for MIKE HUCKABEE. Even if he is the nominee I will not support him. I will not let him take our party in a populist/liberal/"progressive" direction. I will not support that and your blog here hasn't swayed a single vote.
Fred's great, Huckabee stinks, but maybe you shouldn't be questioning whether someone's Christian just because you disagree with them?
I asked if it is a Christian thing to do to mislead. It is not in MY humble opinion. The person writing the diary was not truthful and I don't think that even Huckabee would approve of the diarist's tactics.
Half-truths, twisting of facts, and character assassination are the "populist's" stock in trade.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
Re-read (if you read it at all) my first paragraph again and then we can talk. You were misleading and dishonest in your approach and that is unfortunate.
which is why Mitt is my #2. I have never seen either McCain or Huck say they were wrong, despite numerous opportunities to admit previous mistakes. I find this very disingenuous on both of their parts.
To say that your characterization of Thompson's abortion views is misleading does not do it justice. I HOPE that everyone actually watched the video clip you posted to discern his views for themselves.
A synopsis:
1) Federal Government should stay out of it.
2) No federal funding
3) Reasonable state restrictions
4) Criminalize abortions? No, but this issue will ultimately be resolved favorably in the hearts and minds of the American people. We're learning more about it and what it does to women.
This is a pro-life view. His argument is that we shouldn't criminalize it.
What does Huckabee think about criminalization of abortion? Let's see:
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
Okay. Strong pro-life view there. I share it. Abortion is wrong. It's murder. So, how do we deal with murderers? Apparently, we provide some sort of sanction for the murderer, but certainly not prison time. And the co-conspirator is a victim that should go totally unpunished. (Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/30/huckabee_would_crimi...)
Of course, even if we did criminalize abortion and punish doctors with prison time, we all know that President Huckabee would commute or pardon them as soon as they find Jesus.*
It is not my intention to question Huckabee's sincerity on the issue of life. I do seriously question his ability to process and analyze difficult legal issues.
* - I strongly support jailhouse conversions. I just don't think that a person's debt to society should be abbreviated merely because their eternal debt has been paid.
--
"If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative?" -- Rush Limbaugh (1/7/08)
Pro-life -- you have a point that Fred has been slippery about his mildly pro-choice past, but that was a long time ago and he's pro-life now and seems to have been since 2000. No biggy.
Immigration -- immigration just wasn't on people's radar until recently. I don't fault someone for only recently having figured it out. Huckabee is a lot less credible than Thompson on this score.
McCain-Feingold -- it stinks, but its not in my top 5 issues.
Guns -- I don't know how much I'm willing to trust that collection of oppo research you link to. Fred's from Tennessee, though he has Senator instincts, so I bet he's basically sound. He seems to be all right about it whenever he's asked. His lifetime rating from the ACU is in the 80s, so he's basically conservative but with occasional moderate leanings, like McCain. I'd trust him as much as any candidate in the race on guns.
Executive ability -- this is a real concern. Fred D Thompson would be my clear number one if he'd ever run anything. As is, he's my 1a guy. He's not as great as some say, but not quite as bad as you make out here (though you are pretty fair, I admit).
However I might say that some of Huck's decisions were in the past and he has 'learned' from and 'modified' his current postions as well. That is largely the gist of my post; everyone has their past but Mike's gets a lot more play. The issue you cite are largely why Fred is my #2
...especially the stunts with the pardons/parolees/etc., tax increases, and tuition for illegals. Now maybe I've just missed it, but if the guy would just admit that he made a mistake and say "You know, I screwed up on that one - it was wrong, I never should have done it, and I won't ever do it again", then I'd be a lot less disgusted with him. Thompson has done that in at least two situations - McCain-Feingold, where he said "it didn't work the way I intended for it to, and that was bad" (or something to that effect - I'll have to track it down), and his priors on the abortion issue, where he has stated that having his own kids has changed his attitude.
After his Iowa caucus victory, several MSM types said that Huckabee was going to have to "mend fences" with the ficons and defcons. Unless he admits he's been wrong on some of his positions, that won't happen.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
do that somewhat by hardening both his rhetoric and posted policy positions on Fiscal issues but at this point it is probably a no win situation for him.
I would mention two points: First I think he feels on fiscal issues that he did the best he could in the environment he found himself. That may or may not be true but Rudy, Mitt and Mike in particular each had to govern in essentially hostile environments.
Second, at this point if he said: ok, ok, I should have worked harder to keep taxes down. I should have found the money some other way etc. Then what he would get at this point in the race is a headline that says "HUCKABEE ADMITS HE IS NO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE" and it wouldn't change any minds anyway. The only point at which he has to mend fences is if he becomes the nominee as he will need the votes in the general.
...but I think the MSM is more friendly to Huckabee than the folks here are. So I doubt he'd get a lot of that kind of treatment, except perhaps in a few op eds here and there. Like I said, Thompson is pretty widely quoted as saying "I was wrong on the life issue - I realized that when my wife and I had kids". And the only place I can remember hearing him be accused of being pro-choice is here (by Huckabee fans, coincidentally).
As far as "doing the best he could" on the fiscal front, yeah, he's said that. But what he has NOT said is "You know, I probably could have done a better job cutting spending." See, I don't think he's EVER admitted that he was wrong. That was the point of my posting. He makes excuses. He doesn't admit fault. Not that that's a commonplace occurrence in the political universe, but there are precedents.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
You deserve more recommenders by the way. I think if so many here weren't so emotional about Fred and so bitter about Huck, you'd get 'em.
You forgot FMA. FMA alone could kill McCain and Fred's campaign in SC. We just need some people to highlight the issue (enter: James Dobson and all the other social conservatives).
If I were Huckabee, I would run a simple TV ad in SC with the following words plastered on the screen for 30 seconds: