Thompson For McCain

The sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and Fred Thompson has endorsed John McCain over former Representative J.D. Hayworth for the Arizona Senate seat currently held by the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee. Thompson always has been reputed to be close to McCain, perhaps reflected in the failure of the former U.S. Senator (Tennessee), actor (Law and Order), and radio commentator (Paul Harvey News and Comment, The Fred Thompson Show) to make more than a token pursuit of the presidential nomination himself two years ago.

Thompson always has been a conservative, whether in the economic, cultural, or foreign policy realms, but also an establishment figure in the Republican Party. It is hardly surprising for him to have endorsed the incumbent, nor for him to emphasize the object of McCain's passion, foreign policy (or as the right-leaning mainstream media would have it, "national security," implying that the more liberal or dovish couldn't possibly support the security of the nation). But the former Tennessean did make an interesting leap of faith when he announced

I’m for John McCain. I hope he gets re-elected. I’ll help him get re-elected if I can. It’s more important for me, and I believe for the country, to have McCain’s leadership and the respect that he brings to bear on an issue. When he takes the floor on a national security matter. When he takes the floor and leads the intellectual effort the for the surge. When, without his efforts, I don’t think we would have ever had a surge and therefore we would never have had a victory in Iraq....

The (pro-Iranian) government is more stable than previously and casualties are down. But "victory" in Iraq? Leila Fadel reports in Wednesday's Washington Post:

But this time, there will be no outsider acting as a buffer between the warring sects. U.S. military officials acknowledge that as Iraq regains sovereignty, their influence is waning. A senior U.S. military official who has spent years in Iraq said he fears that as the drawdown begins, American forces are leaving behind many of the same conditions that preceded the sectarian war.

"All we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a stark assessment. "The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing."

This may be overly pessimistic. Or not. Certainly, this is not what General Douglas MacArthur meant when he wrote "There is no substitute for victory."
But neither is the deterioration of security and stability the anonymous official perceives akin to "victory" in the modern, less ambitious, sense.

The Christian Right And Humility

"Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you." (James 4:10, New American Standard Bible)

".... for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5, NASB)

Thus asked about the origin of life at Reverend Rick Warren's forum at Saddleback Church, Barack Obama, in the spirit of humility, replied:

Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

The response from conservative Republicans? Fred Thompson in his speech on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention echoed the response of most conservatives, including white evangelicals: "And we need a president who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."

Give most white evangelicals a choice: an extremely proud, pro-life, candidate such as John McCain or a humble pro-choice candidate like Barack Obama. Like the (secular) Fred Thompson, most of those on the Christian right will choose the former, every time. Which will tell you a lot about the Republican mind-set.

Reflections on the Debate (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)- No. 5

I have been unfairly ridiculing John McCain as "Saint McCain." As we all knew even before the 1/10/08 Repub Presidential debate, among fiscal, cultural, or foreign policy, conservatives, there is only one true saint. Read the candidates' own words of reverence about this individual for whom they have undying devotion.

Rudolph Giuliani: " I would do that the way I did as mayor of New York City, the way Ronald Reagan did it as president of the United States."

John McCain: "I'm proud to have been a member of the Reagan revolution, a foot soldier."

Mike Huckabee: "Well, I'm not sure anybody said we're not running for a Reagan term.... All of those things were a part of that Reagan coalition. I was a part of it in 1979 and a lot of the evangelicals who became a part of helping Ronald Reagan to be elected."

John McCain (again): "the Reagan revolution that brought about a new dawn of a new day in America and helped us immeasurably in bringing down the iron curtain."

Mitt Romney:

But let me come back to your other question about Ronald Reagan. Look, the only way we're going to win the White House is by appealing to the coalition that brought together the great strength that Ronald Reagan brought to America.
What's happened in America is that Washington has moved away from the Reagan coalition. The Re-publican Party, in some cases, has moved away from the Reagan principles.
But the principles that Ronald Reagan espoused are what will allow us not only to win the White House, but to keep America strong. Ronald Reagan was the ultimate optimist. He was a person who had confi-dence in America and brought back that spirit that we rely upon to be the strongest nation on Earth.
Ronald Reagan said we're going to have such a strong military, we'll out-compete the Soviets, and he did. He said we're going to have such strong families that the values of Americans will shine as an example of a shining city on a hill for the entire world to see, and he did that.

Fred Thompson: "On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security.... (But Huckabee's platform is) .... not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party."

Rudolph Giuliani (again): "I'm a conservative because I believe in a strong national defense, the way Ronald Reagan did. I think peace through strength that Ronald Reagan proposed to deal with the Cold War is similar to what we have to do now in dealing with this terrorist war against us."

Ron Paul: (didn't get the memo).


And here is the funny thing. All these guys assume Ronald Reagan was a conservative Republican while they are posing, accurately or otherwise, as authentic conservatives. But as Jonathan Chait notes in "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics," Reagan was a moderate Republican by today's party standards. Sure, Reagan ran up the federal deficit and attacked the labor movement (such as by firing air traffic controllers), heady, exciting stuff for a middle class- hating Republican. But he also signed an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union in 1987; appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy (who have turned out to be swing voters) to the Supreme Court; enacted the largest tax increase in American history in 1982 and raised income taxes again in 1983; and in 1986 signed the Tax Reform Act, which Chait concludes "raised the proportion of taxes paid by the rich and reduced the proportion paid by the poor."

Still, the Repubs must comfort themselves by maintaining the fiction that Ronald Reagan was a true conservative and that George W. Bush is somehow a heretic. And besides- Christianity has Jesus Christ and Islam has Muhammad. We should allow Republicanism to have Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The Irrelevance of Iowa

There may be a lesson, or two, in John McCain's defeat in the Iowa Repub caucus. The Arizona senator finished fourth, slightly behind a candidate (F. Thompson) who often seeems disinterested in the campaign. Yet, he's the favorite to win the New Hampshire primary today, if only by a small margin, at which point he would be considered the favorite to be the non-evangelical, non -(faux) populist, the mainstream alternative to Mike Huckabee. And the media would put pressure on Mitt Romney to win the Michigan primary, suggesting that failure to do so would spell defeat in his bid for the nomination.

A victory today in New Hampshire would not propel McCain to the nomination, but would do more than keep him in the game, and that despite- or perhaps because- he virtually ignored Iowa.

And Hillary Clinton should have bypassed either Iowa or New Hampshire. If the New York senator had downplayed the significance of the Iowa caucus and concentrated her efforts elsewhere, Barack Obama (presumably) would have won big in Iowa- which he did, anyway, thereby demonstrating Clinton's vulnerability and weaknesses. (And John Edwards, one-on-one with the "Barack Star," might have blocked the big victory.) Coming out of Iowa, with Obama's big margin, Clinton should have harnessed her funds and energy, avoided New Hampshire, and gone elsewhere. This is hindsight- but a powerful organization should have seen this coming. Further, Clinton supporters, including Terry McAuliffe just this morning on MSNBC, have been saying since Iowa that the campaign never considered that state a particulary strong one for their candidate- with some indication that this has been a long-held fear. Avoidance of the caucus in Iowa would have, if nothing else, blunted the emphasis on Barack Obama as a giant-killer in a state with few delegates but a tremendous impact on media exposure and momentum.

Candidate Wishes

With the approach of Three Kings Day (or, Epiphany) and the Iowa caucuses, it is time to look at the gift wish for Thursday, January 3, 2007 of the major Democratic and Repub Presidential candidates. Here we go:

Hillary Clinton- a first place finish; otherwise, second place to John Edwards. Edwards is not nearly as well-financed as Obama, and the media will spin an Obama victory as "historic."

Barack Obama- a first place finish; otherwise, second place to Edwards. (If Clinton wins here, she may be unstoppable.)

John Edwards- first place, anyway he can get it legally and ethically; and with hopes that Obama then finishes second. (There must be a reason Edwards has made it clear that he prefers Obama to Clinton, and that Edward's chief strategist Joe Trippi takes every opportunity to criticize the campaign of Hillary Clinton- but not of Barack Obama.)

Mitt Romney- first place- and a fourth place finish for John McCain, his chief rival in New Hampshire (and with the non-evangelical wing of the Repub Party)

Mike Huckabee- a first place finish by a sufficient margin to overcome media hostility to a GOP candidate who apparently believes that greed is not the highest value to aspire to.

John McCain- third place, so that the other Establishment Republican (F.T., see below) experienced in the ways of Washington comes in only fourth; and an Obama defeat in the Democratic primary so that independents are not attracted to Obama in New Hampshire (but do vote in the Repub primary for the Arizona Senator).

Fred Thompson- third place- and first place for Romney, so the other Southerner doesn't come in first. If- a big "if"- Thompson survives Iowa and New Hampshire and Huckabee is weakened, he has good shot at winning in critical South Carolina.

I would make a prediction. But it would be coming from someone who believed that the New York Giants (10-6) would scrap to win five games this season, the Baltimore Ravens (5-11) would compete for the Super Bowl, and no team could go undefeated in the National Football League. So I'll spare everyone.

Reflections on the Debate (Johnston, Iowa)- No. 2


The third question of the Repub Presidential debate of December 12, 2007 came on the issue of taxes, arguably the GOP's favorite issue to demagogue. Des Moines Register vice president and editor Carolyn Washburn asked:

Who in this country is paying more than a fair share of taxes relative to everyone else: the wealthy, the middle class, the poor or corporations? (This is, as worded, actually a very good question).

Back to the pander scale, with 0 being straightforward and honest, 5 being top-notch pander. In reverse alphabetical order:


Thompson: "Five percent of Americans pay over half the income taxes in this country. 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all. I think we need to concentrate on preserving the tax cuts of '01 and '03."

Translation: Let's cut everybody's taxes- especially those of the upper class. ("Five percdent of Americans pay over half the income taxes.) Pander: 4.

Tancredo: " Everyone that is presently paying tax, you could be -- you can make a case that they're paying too much. The reality is, of course, you need a different system entirely. We do need to move away from this archaic -- a system that taxes productivity, which is what we do, to a system that allows for a fair tax. I believe in that."

Translation: I want to cut everyone's taxes, and who can argue with something called a "fair" tax? Pander: 4.

Romney: "I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying, to tell you the truth. I'm concerned about the taxes that middle class families are paying. They're under a lot of pressure. Gasoline's expensive. Home heating oil, particularly in the Northeast, is very difficult for folks. Health care costs are going through the roof. Education costs and higher education are overwhelming. And as a result, we need to reduce the burden on middle-income families in this country."

Translation: I care about the middle class. (No one loses a vote supporting the middle class, but where did he say the progressive middle tax should be cut?) Pander: 1.

Paul: "The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax and it is the most regressive. It hits the poor and the middle class. When you destroy a currency by creating money out of thin air to pay the bills, the value of the dollar goes down, and people get hit with a higher cost of living. It's the middle class that's being wiped out. It is most evil of all taxes."

Translation: See Romney. Pander: See Romney.

McCain: "I know that I'm happy to say low-income Americans, except for payroll taxes, don't pay taxes, but we've got to reform the tax code. Nobody understands it. Nobody trusts it. Nobody believes in it. And we have to fix it. And we can't raise taxes as our Democrat friends want."

Translation: I'm not really going to commit myself to anything except "reform." But in case you heard that I believe in working across the aisle, don't you believe it. That's why I'm using the noun "Democrat" as an adjective, to let you know I understand they're the enemy. Pander: 2.

Keyes: "who have spent overboard into deficits after promising us on the Republican side that they would limit the government, and then produced the highest budget deficits in the history of our country."

Translation: These politicans are just making me sick. Pander: 0 (not so wise to criticize Repubs in a Repub debate by implying, accurately, that they're even worse than the Democrats).

Hunter: "The tax that we're all paying that doesn't help anything -- it doesn't go to defense, it doesn't go to the roads, it doesn't go to medical care -- is the $250 billion-plus that we pay each year not to the federal government, to the Treasury, but to prepare our taxes, defend our taxes, and for the massive cost of the IRS. That's all overhead -- 250 billion-plus dollars. What we ought to do is have a system -- the fair tax system is a good one, or a flatter tax or a simpler tax, because that young couple that pays 1,450 bucks in taxes may pay $450 to their tax preparer. That's a second tax."

Translation: Huckabee advocates a "fair" tax but I can promise you it won't be progressive, so all those people of modest means, who generally don't vote for us, anyway (or do, because we throw a hot button cultural issue at them at election time)
will pay as much as the more affluent. Pander: 4.

Huckabee: "Over 80 percent of the American people know that the tax code is irreparably broken. I would lead one to a fair tax, and that means that the rich people aren't going to be made poor, but maybe the poor people could be made rich."

Translation: Under my system, the poor get rich, and the richer get richer! Everybody wins! It's Christmas every day! Not as complete a pander as Giuliani's response on the debt, but stated more succintly. Pander: 5.

Giuliani: "A flatter tax, a simpler tax that you could file on a one page, as an option, would be a good idea. Reducing the corporate tax, as I suggested. Reducing income tax rates across the board, which would mostly benefit the middle class. That's where the focus should be. But we've got to reduce taxes across the board, and we should give the death penalty to the death tax. It really is a very unfair tax."

Translation: You keep asking me about economics, I'll stay on message and give you the same answer each time. Reduce all taxes, especially for that guy who inherits property worth a few million dollars, which I'm going to continue to call the "death tax" until one of you cowards in the media has the guts to correct me. Good pandering, made all the better when he misleadingly claims "reducing tax rates across the board, which would mostly benefit the middle class." (Well, yeah, because there are a lot more middle class than upper class persons, but a wealthy individual makes out a lot better than the middle class person when the progressive income tax is cut.) Pander: 5.

Mitt Romney won't make this mistake again. A Republican debate, and he says "I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying, to tell you the truth." A pretty radical suggestion for a Republican, it seems to me.

Reflections on the Debate (Johnston, Iowa)- No. 1

In the Repub Presidential debate of 12/12/07 sponsored by the Des Moines Register, the fair, if particularly colorless, moderator, Carolyn Washburn, began by two interrelated questions: The first I've quoted directly, below, and the second asked the candidates what kind of sacrifice they would ask of the Americn people to tackle the debt.

The comptroller general has said the U.S. faces a tsunami of debt that is a great threat to our national security. Do you agree our country's financial situation creates a security risk, and why are why not?
Let's see how each candidate fared on the "pander meter." The scale is from 0 (not far from where non-candidate Al Gore currently is) to 5, sort of the Laffer/Kemp standard, the giants of pander in modern American politics. We'll take these guys in reverse alphabetical order:


Thompson: "That's why I put out a specific Social Security plan that'll save Social Security while saving the government $4 trillion. It's all in entitlements. We've got to spend more for the military, as a matter of fact. But we've got to look at Social Security and Medicare and do some things now that won't hurt anybody badly but will save it for the next generation.The thing about it is that we can do it now without hurting those programs with -- actually strengthening those programs so that our kids and grandkids have -- I don't think we as American people are so selfish that we're going to put this off the table, kick the can down the road and let everybody else solve that problem, you know, when our grandkids get to be working age. That's not America; that's not what makes us strong.
And specifically, as far as Medicare is concerned, we need to tell people that are in Warren Buffet's category we're not going to take care of all your Medicare in the future; we can't afford it.

Translation: Let's consider entitlements and cut Social Security and Medicare because we care more about our children than ourselves. Bad reasoning, bad policy, weak pandering- 0.

Tancredo: "Don't ask the government for womb-to-tomb protection for your life, to build a bubble around you because all of that will cause a humongous amount of money and money that we don't have."

Translation: You're on your own, buddy. Don't expect anyone to help you. Bad policy, weak pandering- 0.

Romney: "The best answer for our economic woes is to make sure we have good jobs for our citizens, good schools for our kids, good health care for everyone, and that we have policies that promote the growth of the nation. We can have a little playing field around the world, get ourselves off of foreign oil, reduce the excessive spending in Washington, and have a bright future for our kids. This, again, is based upon the strength of the American people. If you want to see a strong America, you don't look to Washington; you look to ways to strengthen the American people.... "and the sacrifice we need from the American people, it's this: it's saying let the programs that don't work go."

Translation: We can do it all (good jobs, good schools, health care, bright future). But government ("Washington") is the enemy. And still I'll cut the programs you, the voter, don't like. Contradictory, nonsensical, but excellent politics and pandering- 4.

Paul: "We have to live within our means. If we're going to spend money, we ought to spend it at home, and that is why we have to change this foreign policy. We can't afford it to do what we're doing today because it will destroy our dollar.... (But) I think it's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice. We want to give people more freedom, more chance to spend their own money. It's unnecessary."

Translation: Let's cut our bases, and there will be no need for personal sacrifice because, as a libertarian, I care about the individual and the community can go to h_ _ _. Pander score: 3.

McCain: not asked to respond

Keyes: "....you cut off the spigot that funds the political ambition of our leaders by abolishing the income tax and restoring control of 100 percent of their income to the American worker. That means you replace it with a fair tax system that puts the American people in control of their money."

Translation: I don't want the affluent to pay more than the middle class and I would tell you more, but my rant is almost done. Pander score: 3.

Hunter: "We should stop China from cheating on trade, bring back a lot of those high-paying manufacturing jobs to this country that we pushed off-shore. That means bigger paychecks. That means more money going into the Federal Treasury and to Social Security and to Medicare, eliminate those twin deficits, and we'll be on the right track."

Translation: Deal with mainland China. (The entitlement issue really isn't germane to my campaign.) Not really enough about cutting taxes for the red-meat audience. Pander score: 1.

Huckabee: " A lot of the federal budget goes to health care. We need to
do what most American companies are finding works in reducing health care cost. That's moving from the intervention-based health care model to a prevention-based" (sic).

Translation: I used to be fat but slimmed down with a regimen of diet and exercise, and in the process learned the importance of prevention. With this answer, the media will love me- they will actually think I'm in favor of a government role in health care.... and I didn't even say anything about sacrifice! Pander: 2.

Giuliani: "And we have to do it by imposing spending caps on the civilian agencies in governments -- 5 percent, 10 percent, maybe 15 percent. We have to say that we're not going to rehire half of the civilian employees that come up for retirement.... And then we have to reduce taxes. Right now we should reduce the corporate tax. We should reduce it from 35 percent to 25 percent. We should get rid of death tax and a whole group of others, but the first one should be the corporate tax. Restrain the central government, give people more choice, more money to spend, we're going to see our economy booming."

Translation: How many taxes which cut into the power of the wealthy can I advocate cutting in such a short period of time? Sure, it's irresponsible (I won't even mention that cutting government employment will cut government accountability and service to the public), but when has that ever lost votes in a Repub primary? Pander: 5. With this answer, Giuliani may have retired the pander trophy- no, there still is time left in the campaign to convince the Repub voters that he may be a libertine but will do more than anyone else to concentrate power in the hands of the powerful.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 10

Does any Repub believe in the pro-life cause? Or is this just political correctness, Republican style?

At their presidential debate of 11/18/07 sponsored by CNN/YouTube, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson fielded the following questions from a woman from Texas named Journey:


In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Paul responded in part "but I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist." Thompson similarly stated "it goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl, or the young girl, or her parents, whoever it might be."

Unfortunately, host Anderson Cooper did not ask the other candidates if they agreed with the two respondents that an individual initiating, pursuing, and paying for, the murder of another individual (which would be the case if abortion were prohibited) should not in any circumstance be charged with a crime. (I suspect all would concur.) No Repub (or any other politician or public official of whom I'm aware) has questioned the legitimacy of the contract killing he or she would be condoning.... which is a strange position for an operation which used to pretend (and still does, to a lesser extent) that it is the "law and order" party.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 3


As realclearpolitics.com indicates, former Senator/lobbyist/actor Fred Thompson is well behind Rudolph Giuliani nationally among Repub voters and is not in first place in any state polled. Still, there must have been a reason, and was, that before entering the race, he was believed to be a formidable contender. If a couple of responses from the 11/18/07 CNN/YouTube Presidential debate are an indication, Thompson still is a threat. Here is a question from apparent gun enthusiast Eric Bentson of Phoenix, Arizona:

Any of you all want to tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?

Take a look at Thompson's response, remembering that this is a Republican debate in front of (presumably conservative) Republican heavy hitters, by a candidate appealing to the activist, Repub primary voter:

I own a couple of guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or where they are.

Laughter followed, but it was not the laughter of derision, but of support. Exactly what a Repub interested in the issue of guns/gun control himself (or herself) would have liked to have replied to such a query (Think tough guy with a touch of paranoia about government agents.)

Then, CNN presented:

Nick Anderson as Dick Cheney cartoon character: Yes. Will you grant your vice president as much power and influence as I've had?

And remember, before you answer, I'm watching you.

And Thompson's (initial) response:

First of all, I'm greatly relieved. For a second there, I thought that was me.

Greeted by inevitable laughter, it was a humurous, self-deprecating response. Only problem- it almost was true. Arguably, Fred Thompson never has looked as bad as he has during this campaign. Previously, he gave the appearance of being an old and wise grandfather. Now he just looks old.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 3

Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for the Truly Wealthy, AKA Americans for Tax Reform, asked this question at the 11/28/07 Repub Presidential debate:


President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?

In full pander mode, Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani all said they would. Thompson, McCain, Paul (the libertarian!) refused to take this foolish pledge. Even the arch right-winger Duncan Hunter refused. Imagine this: no matter the economic health of the country; no matter whether we are involved in a foreign war; no matter the possibility of a natural disaster or terrorist attack- four Repub contenders, three of whom are considered serious contenders by the media, have pledged not to raise taxes for (at least) four years. Completely, thoroughly, irresponsible.

Call it conservative political correctness, hypocrisy, or deception.

On the heels of the endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee of Fred Thompson for the Repub nomination for President, Chris Matthews interviewed its executive director, David O'Steen. Here is the transcript (with the relevant question in italics):



On the heels of Senator Brownback‘s endorsement of John McCain and Pat Robertson‘s support of Rudy Giuliani, the National Right to Life Committee officially today threw its weight behind Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Can Thompson be the candidate for the pro-life movement and social conservatives generally?

David O‘Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Thank you, sir.

Why did you pick Fred Thompson, rather than John McCain, who is a real lifelong pro-lifer?

DAVID O‘STEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE:

Well, we examined three things, the candidate‘s position, the candidate‘s record, and their electability.

And, quite frankly, Senator Thompson scored on all three. He has got a strong pro-life stand on the issues. He‘s committed to appointing the kind of judges that would reverse Roe v. Wade, judges that will interpret the Constitution according to their text.

He‘s voted right down the line on the issues, including—and his stand on embryonic stem cell research is very pro-life. He opposes the kind of research that would require killing human embryos and supports the kind of research that is producing cures now and wouldn‘t harm anyone. And he‘s got a record...

MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stand—but what about his opposition—he was doing—he said this on “Meet the Press” recently, very recently—that he opposes passing a constitutional amendment, amending the Constitution to basically outlaw—let‘s take a look at what he said about the amendment to ban abortion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “MEET THE PRESS”)

TIM RUSSERT, NBC WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

FRED THOMPSON, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No.

RUSSERT: You would not?

THOMPSON: No.

I have always—and that‘s been my position the entire time I have been in politics. I thought Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response particularly to Roe vs. Wade because of that.

Before Roe vs. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. To have an amendment compelling, going back even further than pre-Roe vs. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do think would be the way to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: But doesn‘t—Mr. O‘Steen, doesn‘t a right-to-lifer believe in outlawing abortion, period, not leaving it up to the states, like states‘ rights?

O‘STEEN: Well, of course, what—first, let me—I will point out, Fred Thompson has clarified it. He wouldn‘t try to change the Republican platform.

But no one can promise a human life amendment in the next term of—the next presidential term. It would take a change of 25 to 30 votes in the United States Senate. And that‘s not going to happen.

The human life amendment has been a goal of the right-to-life amendment, but it‘s a tool. It‘s a tool to protect unborn children. What we‘re trying to really do is protect unborn children.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

O‘STEEN: And that‘s going to be done first by reversing Roe v. Wade, by getting the kind of judges that Fred Thompson will appoint. Now, having...

MATTHEWS: What is your ultimate goal? Your ultimate goal, though, as a right-to-life organization is to outlaw abortion in America, isn‘t it?

O‘STEEN: Our ultimate goal is to pass laws to protect unborn children.

But, remember, with a human life amendment or reversing through the court, it‘s going to take enabling state legislation.

You know, Fred Thompson voted in the Senate against a resolution praising Roe vs. Wade. He voted against a sense of the Senate resolution. His support to overturn Roe vs. Wade is clear. He‘s been there. He knows that life begins at conception. He has stated that. He opposes abortion.

Remember, also, he‘s a conservative. He‘s a federalist. And, of course, we have a federal system of government. And, when he states that people in the states and people, through their legislatures, can pass laws he disagrees with—and notice he said he disagrees with—that‘s just our system of government. But he‘s a pro-lifer. He wants to see pro-life laws passed. And he worked hard in the Senate...

MATTHEWS: What about—what about Romney? Romney says he‘s a pro-lifer. McCain is a pro-lifer.

Let me ask you about Romney, who is—who is doing so well in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. He may well be the early front-runner when we start actually voting in this country. Would you support him if he were to win the nomination?

O‘STEEN: I don‘t want to get into hypotheticals, because I believe Fred Thompson will win the nomination.

But let me say this about the early states. And Fred Thompson is positioned well to win in states like South Carolina and Nevada. With the compressed primary schedule and essentially a mini national primary February 5, it‘s not clear how—how those early states are going to play in this.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I have always wondered something about...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I have always wondered something about the pro-life movement. If—if you believe that killing—well, killing a fetus or killing an unborn child is—is murder, why don‘t you bring murder charge or seek a murder penalty against a woman who has an abortion? Why do you let her off, if you really believe it‘s murder?

O‘STEEN: We have never sought criminal penalties against a woman.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

O‘STEEN: There haven‘t been criminal penalties against a woman.

MATTHEWS: Well, why not?

O‘STEEN: Well, you don‘t know the circumstances and how she‘s been forced into this. And that‘s...

MATTHEWS: Forced into it?

(CROSSTALK)

O‘STEEN: ... to be effective.

We‘re out—we‘re not out—we‘re out to try to protect unborn children.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: See, this is where the hypocrisy comes in, sir. If it‘s wrong to have an abortion, why don‘t you criminalize it?

(CROSSTALK)

O‘STEEN: I don‘t think that‘s the way you‘re going to protect unborn children.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, if you say it‘s murder, why don‘t you act on that?

O‘STEEN: I think civil—I think civil penalties, aiming at the doctors, taking away their financial incentives. We‘re after what works to protect unborn children. And that‘s the goal.

MATTHEWS: But the problem with all the states‘ rights is, you just go to the next state. And, if you outlaw it in America, you just go to Canada or Mexico or Dominican Republic.

Unless you penalize the person who has an abortion, I don‘t see how you actually stop somebody from having one.

O‘STEEN: Well, I—I‘m not—we have never sought criminal penalties against a woman.

I think it‘s much—far more effective to take away the financial incentive of the abortion doctors that are doing this for profit and for money. And we are—and our goal, remember, is to protect unborn children and to do what will work.

And it is a fact we have a federal system of government, yes.

MATTHEWS: Right.

O‘STEEN: Yes, we‘re going to work for laws in all of the states. And we will overturn Roe v. Wade. And Fred Thompson would help do that.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that abortion is murder?

O‘STEEN: I believe it‘s the killing of a human being. Murder is a technical term. And right now, unfortunately, it‘s legal. But it‘s the killing of a human being.

MATTHEWS: But you do believe it‘s murder?

O‘STEEN: I believe it‘s the killing of a human being, that‘s the term.

MATTHEWS: It just seems like you make a basic political judgment that would blame the doctor, when, in fact, these doctors don‘t go door to door offering people abortion services. The person who wants the abortion goes to a doctor and has the procedure done by the doctor. Yet you put the onus on the doctor. It just seems to be the strangest way to enforce a law.

O‘STEEN: Remember, that‘s where the financial incentive is, and the physician knows what they‘re doing. How many women have been told this is a blob of tissue? This isn‘t really a human life? How are they pressured by men that want to escape their responsibilities, perhaps? What about a young girl that‘s been impregnated by a male, where it‘s a case of statutory rape?

But the abortion doctor knows exactly what they‘re doing. They‘re taking a human life. And you will see Roe v. Wade reversed and you‘ll see respect for human life restored. And Fred Thompson will help do that.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much for coming on this show, David O‘Steen of the National Right to Life Committee. Up next, Rudy Giuliani is still leading in the big states. But who is in the best position to catch him? The round table is coming up next. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC



Matthews asks why the pro-life movement does not seek prosecution of the woman if abortion is considered murder. O'Steen ultimately replies it's "far more effective to take away the financial incentive of the abortion doctors that are doing this for profit and for money." But, as Matthews notes, "these doctors don't go door to door offering abortion services. The person who wants the abortion goes to a doctor and has the procedure done by a doctor." Yet O'Steen, and some other anti-abortion rights activists want to exonerate the individual offering payment for (what has been deemed) murder and deter the doctor (which, ironically, would reduce the supply of providers, thereby increasing the asking price and the profit of the doctor providing the service).

It may be political correctness, a victim mentality the right often claims to be offended by, or a soft-on-crime impulse. Perhaps it's deceit, members of the movement really believing that abortion is not killing, hence no need to prosecute the person offering a contract. Or perhaps, as Matthews says, "this is where the hypocrisy comes in, sir."

Debate Wrap-Up:

As pulled from nytimes.com which in turn credited Congressional Quarterly's transcript, these are the highlights (in chronological order) of the Repub Presidential debate held in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2007 (skip to the end if you'd like):


Anything For A Buck Fred:
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Thompson, have these two guys convinced you that you're wrong and that, in fact, they are both consistent conservatives?

THOMPSON: Well, we've got an hour and a half.

Maybe they can work on it.

(LAUGHTER)

But, they...

(APPLAUSE)

Actually, Mitt, I didn't know there was any room to the left of Ted Kennedy, but maybe there...

(LAUGHTER)

In fact, I didn't know there was any room to the right of him, either, but maybe...

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
He voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: loser pays rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants -- you know?

I did 210 weddings when I was mayor of New York City. So I have experience doing this. They were all men and women.

(LAUGHTER)

I hope.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)


GIULIANI: You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know, but it's not just a religious institution.
(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
HUCKABEE: Let me begin by saying, for the first time in about nine debates, I'm kind of glad I wasn't in on the first few minutes because it was all about these guys fighting each other.

(LAUGHTER)

And I am more than content to let you let them fight all they want tonight, shed each other's blood and then I'll be ready to run for president because...

(LAUGHTER)


Duncan Hunter:
HUNTER: It's got to have, for example, fertility coverage. Well, what if you're 90 years old? We may appreciate Governor Romney's optimism...

(LAUGHTER)

Mike Huckabee:
And we've got a situation with 10,000 baby boomers a day signing up for Social Security, going into the Medicare system. And I just want to remind everybody when all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs, just wait until what that's going to cost out there.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Tom Tancredo:
We should actually be debating that specific point, not what kind of government program. You know, Michael Moore went to Cuba not too long ago, and wrote this documentary about the greatness of the system, how wonderful it was to be in Cuba and have a socialized medical system.

You notice, however, that Michael Moore came back to the United States.

(LAUGHTER)


Mitt Romney:
... when Clinton hears about private sector, she thinks that that's a new recruit in the Army.

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
Governor Romney says the Republicans aren't going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton. And the point seems to be that on a lot of the social issues, like abortion and gay rights and gun control, that there's not much difference between you and Clinton. Is there?

GIULIANI: You got to be kidding.

(LAUGHTER)

You have got to be kidding.

Wait a second. There is -- there are two things I agree with Hillary Clinton on. First of all, we're both Yankee fans.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, wait a second. I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you believe that?

(LAUGHTER)

Second, she made a statement last week -- and I've been very critical of her, but I want to tell her I agree with this one. Quote, Hillary Clinton, I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all.

(LAUGHTER)


Rudolph Giuliani:
If those polls are correct, we’d have Al Gore here to – I don’t know, it might be a little colder, I’m not sure. But I’m not sure we’d be any better off. Right, we’d be in a lot worse shape with Al Gore.

Thank, thank you Florida.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

You saved us in 2000. That was a big one.

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.

(LAUGHTER)

I was tied up at the time.

(LAUGHTER)



Mike Huckabee:
You know, it's interesting, the most, I guess, wonderful reaction we've had in this entire room is when Hillary's name is mentioned. It gets louder than an Aerosmith concert.

(LAUGHTER)



Mitt Romney:
And, you know, Democrats also love America. As Ronald Reagan used to say, it's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that what they know is wrong.

(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
Because the problem is the actuarial tables were designed so that people would retire at 65 and die at 67.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, I'm sorry, but folks aren't dying that early. And short of taking them out, which is not a good idea...

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
HUME: Senator McCain, you've grappled with this issue as long as anybody here. You've heard all the proposals and you heard what Senator Thompson offered.

Your thoughts?

MCCAIN: First of all, I'm glad they're not dying at 67, Governor.

(LAUGHTER)


Tom Tancredo:
But let me add one more thing, and Mr. Mayor quipped something to me during the break, and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you were saying.

(LAUGHTER)



John McCain:
Vladimir Putin has announced just in the last 24 hours that he plans a new, quote, grandiose, nuclear weapons program to counter the U.S. missile defense system. President Bush just recently described President Putin as wily.

(LAUGHTER)

Are we headed back to a new Cold War, or has the Bush administration been naive in dealing with Mr. Putin?

MCCAIN: I don't know about naive, but I do know that when I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Anything For A Buck Fred:
The week after, though -- you took a week off after the last debate. Speech yesterday was about five minutes long. Some people say you're lazy, sir.

How do you deal with that?

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: Well -- no, it's OK. Let me answer that.

I was a father at the age of 17 and a husband at the age of 17. I got started working in a factory. I borrowed and worked my way through. My folks did what they could to help. They were country folks -- came in off the farm.

I was able to be an assistant U.S. attorney when I was 28, prosecuting most of the major federal crimes in middle Tennessee -- most of the major ones.

THOMPSON: Howard Baker selected me to go to Washington and be his counsel on the Watergate Committee at the age of 30.

I came back, took on a corrupt state administration, and won against them. I went to the United States Senate, got elected twice by 20 points in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice.

Condoleezza Rice called upon me to head up an international security advisory board to advise her on international security matters. President Bush called me to help shepherd Chief Justice -- now-Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

If a man can do all that and be lazy, I recommend it to everybody.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


For those keeping score at home, that's Huckabee 4; McCain 3; Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson 2; Hunter 1; Paul 0. Huckabee was the winner of the debate.

But to consider only quantity, and not also quality, of the humor is superficial. In last place, other than the serious Paul and Hunter, obviously would be Tom Tancredo. He muffed one of his jokes- I don't think he meant to say "...and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying," rather "...and here's your chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying." Romney's lines were clearly scripted, and he appeared a little ill at ease going for the laughs. Thompson was passable, and making light of the girth of someone (Ted Kennedy) should work well with Repub activists.

But McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani could quit their day jobs. I recall consider laughter at McCain's joke about Woodstock- a twofer, ridiculing both Hillary Clinton, and Woodstock as "a cultural phenomenon," sparking excitement among the high rollers and politicians present, most of whom probably no longer use pharmaceuticals, except those prescribed by their obliging doctors.

Huckabee's delivery was best- this guy is at ease with himself and actually looks like he made up these jokes himself, on the spot.


Giuliani's material was brilliant: "I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago" (I'm just an average guy, love sports; and by the way, Clinton is disloyal.). "You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City..." (Otherwise, I wouldn't have dressed in drag.). And by reminding Florida that it was their votes (o.k., the votes from blacks that were ruthlessly discouraged, the votes from Jews that erroneously went to Pat Buchanan, and the votes that weren't counted) that determined the 2000 election, he flattered (always a good thing to do) his (Floridian) audience and strongly implied to a Repub audience that election of George W. Bush wasn't the unmitigated national and international disaster it has proven to be.

All in all, a pretty good night for a few of the contenders. And if I seem to be taking this debate as lightly as did some of the candidates, consider this: they were preaching to the Repub electorate, the same group that (almost) elected George W. Bush President in 2000 and elected him in 2004. And that was not comical, but a serious mistake.

Debate Reflections- No. 3

I don't mean to be an advocate for Fred Thompson, but what was Chris Matthews thinking when he objected to Thompson's response to a question about domestic automakers? It appears that he was offended that Thompson added some detail to his answer. As indicated in this transcript, the exchange began with Maria Bartimoro:


MS. BARTIROMO: Senator Thompson, quick follow-up there. Thirty seconds, please. (Applause.) Chrysler is facing a possible walkout on Wednesday. Should the government step in and help Chrysler and the other automakers?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MS. BARTIROMO: Why?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think the government has to have a good reason to step in. I think it has to be something that drastically affects our economy. It might a little bit later on -- you'd have to cross that bridge when you came to it -- as something that affects our economy or our national security.

But I don't think the government ought to step in and have people know that the government will step in if they walk out an create that kind of situation.

MS. BARTIROMO: Even if they say that they are at a disadvantage to foreign automakers.

MR. THOMPSON: Well, of course, they are. But that has nothing to do with the government stepping in. The government ought to relieve that disdavantage that we've got as far as foreign automakers are concerned, make them open up their markets and make certain markets quit devaluing their currency. That's where the pressure needs to be applied.

MR. MATTHEWS: It took a long time. He said no; he should've stopped there. (Laughs.)

What prompted Matthews' laughter? That nations should open their markets to U.S. goods? That nations (such as mainland China) should stop devaluing their currency?


Or perhaps Matthews was engaged in an effort to demonstrate his tireless wit. Here, he has another chit-chat with Giuliani:

MR. GIULIANI: Sure, I think unions have made a positive contribution. My grandmother was an early member of the United Ladies Garment Workers Union, and I don't know that our family would have gotten out of poverty without that. So I have a great appreciation --

MR. MATTHEWS: Can you sing that song, Mr. Mayor?

MR. GIULIANI: However -- pardon me?

MR. MATTHEWS: Can you sing that song?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I sing the song? You don't want me to --

MS. BARTIROMO: (Laughs.)

MR. GIULIANI: -- you don't want me to sing --

MR. MATTHEWS: Work for the union label.

MS. BARTIROMO: (Laughs.)

MR. GIULIANI: You do not want me to sing a song. Everybody will run out of this auditorium if I begin singing a song. I have a terrible voice.


Given his earlier repartee with Giuliani over Yankees' manager Joe Torre and this effort to get Giuliani to sing, it appears we have a member of the media striving mightily to humanize

Iraq And The Republicans

Although not the issue I'm most interested in, the Iraq war is the biggest issue in the country, so it's useful to take a look at the comments regarding the U.S. involvement made by the Republican Presidential candidates during the August 5 debate televised by ABC.

Not surprisingly, only Representative Ron Paul, who noted "the war is not going well because the foreign policy is defective," condemned Persian Gulf II. However, the nature of the comments differed dramatically. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, supporting a three-state solution and arguing that there is more to the war than military, asserted "we need a political surge." Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee referred to Saudi Arabia (a bold move for a Republican) and urged that our nation "end our dependency on foreign oil," an unusual, if wise, assertion for a Republican.

Former Governor Tommy Thompson and U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo included a hint of criticism of President Bush. Thompson stated "I've laid out a plan that we have to give all our resources... to our fighting men and women... but beyond that it is not fair (for the soldiers) to shoulder all the burden, to pay for a war that's costing us ten billion dollars a month, that we're not funding, we're just passing it on to our children and grandchildren..." And he cited "a failure of our President and Congress" not to pressure the Iraqi government sufficiently. (The failure of the Bush Administration to supply our soldiers adequately, while passing on a hugh tax cut for the wealthy, is- or should be- one of the great scandals of this Administration.) And Tancredo, while stating "we are in a war with radical Islam," declared "no President should ever send anyone in this military and keep one arm tied behind them." (A note here- this was a common criticism among Americans during the Vietnam War, that President Johnson was foolishly fighting a war of restraint.)

Comments of these four individuals- Tancredo, T. Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul- are reasonable, to varying degrees valid, and completely non-partisan and bi-partisan.
That's the good news. The other four candidates- U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter and the three (aside from the non-candidate, Anything for a Buck Fred) leading men- were partisan and irresponsible. Mitt Romney fantasized that Obama "has gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove." (Although given Romney's proclivity for philosophical acrobatics, one nearly expects to learn that he once contributed to the "Obama for Senate" campaign fund.) He proclaimed "it's time... for the people of America to a show huge surge of support including our leaders in Washington for our families and these troops... to make sure this surge is a success." Translation: if this escalation fails, it is ony because of the opposition from not only Democratic members of Congress but also Main Street Americans.

To hearty applause, Duncan Hunter described "the Democratic debate" as "a race to see who could stampede to the exit the quickest" while "not a single Democrat (sic) candidate paused in the rush to the exit to say to our Marines "good job. You guys are fighting and achieving with blood, sweat, and tears what the country needs." Those troop-hating Democrats-the guys who sent our soldiers into a battle without a plan to win the peace, proper supplies, or adequate health care. (Scratch that. That was President Bush.)

But though not the most vitriolic, the saddest remarks came from John McCain, who declared "we will not set a date for surrender as the Democrats continue to do." Echoes of the lovely "stab in the back" argument that served the Nazis so well after World War I, ascribing the loss of that war to invisible enemies. Invisible, as in the reputation for bipartisanship and independence that McCain once coveted.

Thompson: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Whatever

Former Senator Fred Thompson a former pro-choice lobbyist? Apparently so, according to the Los Angeles Times of 7/6/07. The Times reports that minutes of a 1991 meeting of the board of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assocition indicate verify the involvement of Thompson, assigned by his firm "to urge the administration of President George H.W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money." Thompson's spokesman has denied the report and John Sununu, the Administration official who would have been lobbied, denied that he spoke to Thompson about it. However, others have stepped forward to express confidence in the report, and it appears that the former Senator's camp is intentionally misrepresenting objective reality.
Which reminds of a recent (7/1/07) posting in which I cast doubt on Fred Thompson's pro-life bonafides and argued that the GOP Presidential race would ultimately pit a cultural conservative (thinking former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney) against a faithful representative (i.e., Thompson) of corporate interests. It now appears that the former Tennessee Senator's pro-life record is even thinner than I had thought. Pro-life, pro-choice, it may not matter much: it's Anything for a Buck Fred.

On Health Care

In an article that appeared on Slate.com on July 1, 2007, Austan Goolsbee, an economic advisor to Barack Obama, argued that Michael Moore's critique of the U.S. health care system was largely accurate but his prescription misguided. Here is the article, entitled Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber, and my rebuttal.

-At the most simplistic level, giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money. Especially since people tend to use things more frequently when they are free. But people don't consume health care the way they do other goods (such as Pepsi), which Malcolm Gladwell identifies as "the moral hazard myth." They schedule doctor's appointments only when they are ill and go to the hospital only when they need to. Nevertheless, in our market-based system, individuals generally fail to distinguish necessary care from unnecessary care and thus "tend to cut down on mundane-but-important things like hypertension medicine, which leads to far costlier complications," according to Ezra Klein in The American Prospect. Costs escalate as individual patients pursue tests, drugs, and other goods and services which are unnecessary but artificially inexpensive to them because the cost is covered by insurance- and encouraged by their doctors, confident of reimbursement while fearful of lawsuits.

-To get costs down to a comparable level, a single-payer system in the United States would have to seriously cut doctors' pay. However, maintaining a large pool of doctors is becoming harder with the current system. In a study released in June, 2007, the American Medical Association contended that if reductions in Medicare reimbursements planned by Congress are made, up to 77% of physicians would limit the number of new or existing Medicare patients. A system in which doctors could concentrate on the health of their patients and not deal with insurance companies might enhance the desirability of the profession.

-Nor do these countries have the same costs associated with malpractice lawsuits that we do. A single-payer system here would have to also include some truly major rearrangement of the tort system to bring those costs down. Doctors can be indemnified from lawsuits and a panel established to determine validity of complaints, with settlements paid from public funds. And by the way, doesn't the relative paucity of malpractice lawsuits in other western nations suggest an advantage, rather than disadvantage, of their system? Perhaps our doctors and hospitals make more mistakes than in state-sponsored systems.

-You would also need to dramatically slash drug prices.... the problem is that (Canada and the United Kingdom) get cheap drugs only because they are free-riding of the massive profits made in the American market. If our government required medicine here to be sold at no more than the lowest price charged abroad, the drug companies would drive the costs up in the other markets rather than reduce them here. Although Medicare is thus far barred from negotiating drug prices, the latter would be lowered if any large organization- such as the U.S. government- is permitted to bargain down the cost. Klein notes this is done in the Canadian provinces, whose citizens pay 60% less for pharmaceuticals than do we. Currently, many Americans break the law by smuggling drugs across the border from Canada. And reducing prices for American consumers interests me more than maintaining low prices for consumers abroad.

-But the main problem with Moore's policy solution is that a national health system wouldn't fix one of our health care system's main flaws- one that people really hate- the denial of service. It just changes who decides, so that the government makes the call. The government, unlike an insurance company, is at least open to democratic controls. Leaving rationing decisions to insurance companies requires insurance salespeople, billing specialists in doctor's offices, and underwriters and contributes to health administration costs. So the United States, reports the New England Journal of Medicine, spends 345%more per capital on health administration than does Canada. And according to OECD. org, in 2003 health spending as a share of gross domestic product was: in Switzerland and Germany, 11%-12%; in Iceland, Norway, and France, 10.1%-10.5%; in Candada, 9.9%; and in the U.S. A., 15%. And insurance companies still deny, deny, deny.

-In those (nationalized health) systems, cost-effectiveness decisions get made all the time. Care is rationed. That's what happens if you offer something for free- you have to make rules about who is allowed to get it. Except in Germany. And France. And elsewhere. In Germany, the insurers are approximately 300 "sickness funds" (neither fully private or public), which ensure that the burdens of bad health are spread across the populace and everyone receives health care. Meanwhile, citizens anxious for more comprehensive coverage can choose to purchase private insurance, as a small minority do. The French government encourages its citizens to purchase supplementary insurance, as most do. And there are private options for the affluent in most western nations, cutting wait time for medical procedures. Even in Canada, the California Nurses Association cites Physicians for a National Health Program as finding "there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than in the U.S. in most areas (and) median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is (sic) now three weeks." Moreover, wait times in a market-based system, such as in the U.S., are likely to be artificially low as many individuals never seek diagnosis, and hence are unaware of their need for surgery, because they lack health coverage. Instead, such consumers often use hospital emergency rooms as doctor's office, driving up costs and wasting resources.

The United States pays more than twice as much per capita on health care than most of the industrialized world and still has 46 million people uninsured. Other individuals remain tied to inadequate employment through which they receive their health insurance. Millions are relegated to ill health, or costly operations, because they never pursued the preventive care common in nations with single-payer systems but discouraged in the largely for-profit American system. Yet, reform of the health care system is attacked as "socialized medicine."

We already have socialized medicine in the U.S.A. It is called the Veterans Health Administration, which controls costs better than the private system, serves patients with shorter wait time and higher customer satisfaction, and is generally lauded for providing better care than most of the health care industry. (Walter Reed Army Hospital is not run by the Veterans Administration but by the Defense Department, with many functions outsourced to the private sector in recent years.)

The leading Republican candidate, Fred Thompson, recently wrote "our entire medical industry- which by the way is the best and most complex in the world...." We await further details from the Presidential candidates about their plans for health care. But it is likely that any major Democratic candidate will advocate, and as President would propose, more fundamental changes than any of the major Republican candidates. Meanwhile, the former actor-Senator-actor already has disqualified himself from consideration by anyone seriously concerned about the health of our nation.

Fred Thompson, Corporatist

Forget Molly Levinson, Mark Halperin, Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, and all the other pols. They and others may tell you that the Republican Presidential race likely will come down to two candidates, one "moderate" and one conservative.

The problem, of course, is that none of the four leading GOP contenders is running as a moderate. Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal on cultural issues, such as gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control. But, not surprisingly, he's downplaying his deviance from the Republican base on those issues and instead emphasizing the inheritance tax, which Republicans, famously and disingenously, like to refer to as the "Death Tax." Mitt Romney has been reborn as a pro-life, anti-gay rights activist and John McCain, who now supports Bush's income tax cuts for the wealthy, is arguably the most passionate supporter of the Iraq war in the U.S. Senate. And former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee has expressed nary a moderate view as he has been increasingly, and effectively, promoted as the party's best hope to nominate a staunch conservative.

But what kind of conservative is Fred Thompson? Responding in 1996 to a survey by the Christian Coalition, Thompson checked "opposed" to an amendment to the United States Constituion "protecting the sanctity of human life" and explained "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized." And when asked by the Memphis group Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc. (hardly pro-choice) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A."

Thompson has spent several years as part of Hollywood, appearing both in films and on television, most notably in "Law and Order." It is hardly suprising, then, that he is comfortable with modern culture, at ease with a society many Republicans are not. On economic matters, however, he is a classic conservative. As a Senator, he voted to terminate Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, to reauthorize fast track trading authority of the President, to restrict class action lawsuits, in favor of allowing personal retirement accounts and Medicare means-testing, and against allowing reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. When Thompson recently cut a video ridiculing Michael Moore for traveling to Cuba for the making of his movie "Sicko," Moore responded in part by targeting the Republican's "box upon box of cigars- Montecristos from Havana that you have in your office have contributed to Castro's reported wealth."

Fred Thompson, Corporatist

It's an interesting habit on the part of a hawkish, conservative Republican- doing his small part to bolster the regime of the dreaded Communist dictator. But it's not out of character. Thompson is playing the part of the cultural conservative but is, at base, a corporatist. It's an act commonly played by GOP politicians, as portrayed by Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Thompson's appeal to conservatives reflects that of the larger conservative movement, which "depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain mental connections about the world, connections that until recently were treated as obvious or self-evident everywhere on the planet. For example, the conection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation." The Republican race will not come down to a "moderate" and a conservative, but between two conservatives: one who represents cultural, "social" conservatism and the other, who, despite his image, represents corporate interests.