It's time to give up on Fred.

With great sorrow, I'm going to have to jump off the Thompson train.

It's not just that Fred Thompson is in favor of allowing families to starve non-terminal patients like Terri Schaivo to death. George Stephanopolous, it seems, confronted Fred on Nov. 18 with the lie that Terri was brain dead when she was starved to death. Instead of correcting this gross misstatement of fact, Thompson replied, "I didn't know that."

It seems to me that Fred Thompson is simply to ill-informed to be our nominee for president. His position on this issue has been vague and badly thought through for long enough that he should have thought it through and developed a position more in keeping with what he believes concerning other life issues by now. Why, if it's wrong (as Thompson rightly says it is) for the Supreme Court to usurp the authority of the states by legislating concerning abortion in Roe v. Wade, is it OK for that same Supreme Court to usurp the authority of the states by defining food and water as medical treatment in Cruzan v. Director? The reluctance of a grieving father who was forced to make a hard end-of-life decision in the case of his own daughter to transgress on the grief of families in similar situations is one thing. But Thompson's utter inconsistancy and unpreparedness to discuss such issues at the level necessary for a presidential candidate, together with his penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, are other matters entirely.

Count me for Huckabee.

ADDENDUM: It seems clear from several of the comments on this post that the commenters had not read the previous post upon which this one was predicated- the one describing my personal conversation with Sen. Thompson a few weeks ago, in which he told me in no uncertain terms that he supports, in cases where the family approves, of the euthanization by starvation and dehydration of patents with non-terminal illnesses. When I described the circumstances which caused my concern, he instantly recognized it. "The Schaivo case," he acknowledged.

No, this is not simply about his being ill-informed about the case. It's about his being on the wrong side of the issue- and about his being unable to see the inconsistency of his position with the position he holds on Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell harvesting.

I've edited this current post to make my reasoning a little clearer than it apparently was before.

Comments

I suppose Thompson may have deserved what he got by volunteering to step in to the Terri Schiavo fray, but this seems a bit severe. Is this the straw that broke the camel's back, or is the damning thing that Fred Thompson actually trusted George Stephanopolous?
Josh Painter said…
Let me get this straight. You're giving up on a real conservative who was honest enough to say that he wasn't familiar with one of the details of a two-year-old news story to support a pro-life, nanny-state liberal?

I can't fathom why you were supporting Thompson in the first place, unless you're one of those single-issue absolutists.

Huckabee may be pure as the driven snow on abortion, but he leaves much to be desired on federalism, fiscal issues and immigration security.
Frank Gillespie said…
Did you see his appearance on FNS? I can’t remember his exact verbiage but when asked about his plan to reduce the number of abortions performed he made the statement (and I’m paraphrasing here) “I don’t know that any state is performing or allowing abortion on demand” I didn’t know what to say hearing that from any GOP candidate.

With the GOP field as is, he had a free ride to the nomination, and he blew it.

I saw Huckabee last week on FNS and was impressed. I’m still not 100% on board but…
In fairness, no state does. Roe took the matter out of the hands of the states and made it a matter of Federal law.

I agree that a well-informed and focused Fred Thompson would have been formidable. Unfortunately, that's just not the Fred Thompson we got.
I'd be glad to help you get it right, Frank. The last sentence in your comment really says it all.

If you were living in 1860, would you have been willing to vote for a candidate who you agreed with on every other issue despite the fact that he was in favor of slavery- in fact, of making it legal in the North, too?

If you answer in the negative, you've answered your own question. If your answer is positive, I think you've just illustrated the problem with people who talk about
"one issue absolutists."

I'm not merely switching to Huckabee because Fred Thompson is ill-informed about the Schaivo case. Nor am I merely switiching to Huckabee because, after all the
uproar over Thompson's position on that issue, he hasn't bothered to become well-informed.

I'm switching, in the last analysis, because Fred Thompson is in favor of people who aren't even terminally ill being euthanized. If you think that is a light matter, I don't think you and I even belong in the same party.

I quote Fred Thompson's response to me: "I will not have my committment to life challenged, either at the beginning of life or at the end of life." That he could make that statement after defending the euthanasia of those who are not even terminally ill is not the light matter you seem to think.

Neither is it a light matter when he used the NARAL talking-point that women who had abortions should be sent to jail. Nobody argues that they should be, and making that statement only legitimizes a totally bogus NARAL talking point. Does he really know no more about the positions of those in the pro-life movement of which he is a member than about the Schaivo case?

I will leave his other ill-considered remarks out of the mix. I supported Fred Thompson initially because I respect him and have always been impressed with his incisive mind, his ability- if only he would use it!- to clean the clocks of the sloppy thinkers in the other party, as splayed over and over again in during TV appearances back when Al Gore and his people were trying to steal Florida and the 2000 election. But he seems to have become a sloppy thinker on life issues himself, and I'm convinced that Hillary or Obama would tear him to pieces in a debate today.

And life issues are not the light matter you seem to think. That you and others in the Thompson campaign seem to think so only reassures me that I'm making the right decision.
Oh, and by the way.... it's not Thompson's statement that he wasn't familiar with the details on this case I'm addressing. It's his failure to become familiar with them- and his siding with the bad guys even when better informed.

Huckabee's positions on the issues you mention may not be acceptable to you. Not all of them make me happy, either. But especially when taken together, life issues and a deportment which enables him to be at least taken seriously as a potential president trump these for me. And no, I do not believe that a social conscience is incompatible with conservatism. Sorry if you do.
Dan, it's his trusting Stephanopolous, his failing to become better informed after taking that heat- and above all, his telling me personally and directly that he's in favor of what they did to Terry Schaivo, if that's what "the family" decided, after I'd laid out the facts of the case and why it was a concern.

It's also a cluelessness that makes me fear that if he gets the nomination the headlines are going to be dominated by his mistatements and miscues. Sound familiar?

Fred was out of the game too long. At least he should have been much, much better informed about things which obviously would become issues before getting back into it.

My respect for Fred Thompson hasn't changed. But as I look forward to the Fall campagin with Thompson as our nominee... well, what I see isn't pretty.
Jeff D said…
Josh Painter,

I don't know how familiar you are with this blog, but I'm quite sure Mr. Waters likes what you call "pro-life, nanny-state liberals" (although Mr. Waters wouldn't call them that).

The only reason Mr. Waters hasn't supported Huckabee earlier is that "his lack of experience in the national stage is worrisome" and "simply wouldn't get a fair break from a mainsteam media hungry for a Democrat in the White House", due to "nit-picking, groundless ethical accusations which- despite their insubstantiality- will likely be a major distraction".
Certainly far more relevant experience than Ron Paul has. There is a limit to how much voting "no" on needed legislation will teach you, and Ron Paul clearly hasn't learned much from the experience. Mike Huckabee has run a state- and run it quite well.

"Groundless ethical accusations" are certainly a better recommendation for a candidate than being utterly out of touch with reality, like Dr. Paul. And no candidate would invalidate either the pro-Democratic bias of the MSM, or its determination to elect Hillary.

Nominating a crackpot like Ron Paul will only make their job easier; all they have to do to discredit him is to accurately report what Paul says.

I am quite sure that you are quite sure about many things, Jeff. The problem is that, being on the far extreme of the Right, the things you are sure about are generally quite insane.

BTW, can you name a few "pro-life, nanny state liberals?" Your far-out position on the political spectrum hardly recommends your analysis of the positions of people who hold less wacked-out positions.

Same goes for the moonbats on the Left, BTW. For the hundredth time, Jeff: why don't you join the rest of us on planet Earth?
Jeff D said…
Nominating a crackpot like Ron Paul will only make their job easier; all they have to do to discredit him is to accurately report what Paul says.

On this planet, simply reporting what a person says does not discredit the individual. It takes a little more work than that.

Lots of intelligent people have heard what Paul says and think he makes a lot of sense. A Democrat would have to actually discredit the ideas... with a reasoned argument. The Democrats simply don't have it in them.
On this planet, people who go around saying the silly and irresponsible things Ron Paul says discredit themselves. There would be no need for a Democrat to discredit his ideas even if they weren't patently silly in themselves, of course; he will never compete with a Democrat. But the fact that college campuses contain people who drink the Paul Koolaide proves nothing; college campuses are hotbeds of screwball ideas, and are notorious for harboring political crazies.

Jeff, I'm very much afraid that Paul's program is so self-evidently silly, irresponsible, and wacked out that it discredits itself in the mind of anybody who lives on planet Earth rather than whatever planet Paul comes from.
The guy is a flake, and so obviously a flake that nobody whose home world is Terra could possibly take him seriously.
Jeff D said…
"I think [the flakes are] in charge. I think anybody who believes you can print money out of thin air and think the dollar is going to maintain its value and not cause economic harm, I think that's a flaky idea. It's pretty bizarre to me.

And I think a $500 billion increase in the national debt, that's flaky. I think an American empire is flaky and weird and not wise. It's unconstitutional."

Ron Paul
A. Renee Daley said…
Josh Painter;

A salute to the Frederalist on board!

People wonder why the GOP is going to hell in a hand basket.

Could it be that the most righteous among us continue to support the worst candidates because of a solitary issue?

Mr. Waters, if you think that Mike Huckabee, as President can accomplish federal solutions to euthanasia, abortion, and gay marriage - you're going to be waiting a very long time.

Those things are not politically feasible for the foreseeable future. And if those are the only things you're looking for from a candidate, then your vote is being horribly wasted.
Ms. Daley, the GOP just might be going to hell in a handbasket because it has so many members who think murder by starvation is merely "a solitary issue." Would you really have voted for a pro-slavery candidate in 1860 if you agreed with him on everything else? Do you realize how nihilistic your willingness to treat socially and legally sanctioned murder as merely "a solitary issue" really is? Do you not see how chilling it is?

Yes, I believe you would have voted for that pro-slavery candidate! After all, slavery would only have been "a solitary issue!"

A man who opposes the murder of the sick and the unborn can, if nothing else, provide moral leadership for the nation. A man who does not, cannot. I believe that Fred Thompson would appoint strict constructionists to the court, just as Mike Huckabee would; that's not the issue. But he is confused in his thinking about euthanasia by starvation, and despite the furor his position has raised, hasn't even bothered to become accurately informed about the matter. More's the pity; again, were he simply consistent with his position on other life issues, the problem would be solved. As it is, this degree of not only moral confusion but confusion about a controversial issue raises little hope that he can survive a debate with the Democrats on these matters.

I really regret that Fred Thompson hasn't taken the time to inform himself about these issues; that he keeps putting his foot in his mouth when he tries; and that he apparently really doesn't see that
every objection he raises to Roe v. Wade also applies to Cruzan v. Director, which he supports. But at this point I have no confidence that the degree of intellectual slovenliness he's displayed here is compatible with a successful national campaign.

If Fred Thompson is a Federalist, why isn't he a Federalist on Cruzan? Ought the legal definition of medication not also to be a state issue, by his own reasoning- and presumably by your own? Merely that would have been enough for him to have retained my support!

One more note: you may think Mike Huckabee is one of "the worst candidates;" so don't vote for him. I disagree. And since I hold libertarianism in contempt and am a social, rather than an ideological, conservative, I think
it might not be difficult to see why I disagree.

Concern for kids and for human life really ought to continue beyond the moment when they leave the womb. And that's much more important to me than what the conservative catechism might say about a given issue.

You once asked whether I was willing to lose the war in order to win a single battle. I'll repeat what I said then: the sanctity of human life is the war, and if we abandon it in order to ensure success in such comparative trifles as free trade and the suicidally hard-nosed attitude toward immigration that has likely doomed the GOP for the next fifty years, we do not deserve to win at all.
Jeff G, my "flake" comment was directed at Dr. Paul, from whom I assume your quote came- it was, after all, a quote. I did not intend to use the term with reference to you.

Just wanted to make that clear.
Jeff D said…
I understood you to be talking about Paul.