Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Answering Dr Taylor re McCain

In a comment to the Fred Quits post below, Dr Steven Taylor of Poliblog asks:

Out of sincere curiosity, why didn’t Thompson’s support (only 1 or 11 Reps) for McCain-Feingold cause problems for you in terms of support? Plus, was Thompson’s views on Iraq really all that different from McCain’s?

I ask because I am honestly perplexed by the fact that many who preferred Thompson vociferously oppose McCain, yet I have always perceived the two to be in a similar wing of the party.

It’s thus worth at least repeating the key bullet points on McCain:

• He basically gutted the first amendment in the guise of campaign finance “reform” by pushing McCain-Feingold.
• It’s true that Thompson supported the Act, but McCain also consistently smeared my friend former FEC chairman Brad Smith for defending the first amendment.
• He gave Dick Durbin cover fire when the latter made some incredibly stupid comments about Iraq and our troops.
• McCain seems to have no notion of what the phrase “limited government” means. Remember the steroid in baseball hearings?
• McCain reportedly flirted with switching parties in 2001 and, of course, there were all those odd rumors about a Kerry-McCain ticket in 2004.
• The Club for Growth reminds us of McCain’s “vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes.”

In sum, I find it hard to quibble with the Club’s conclusion:

Senator McCain’s outspoken pursuit of anti-growth and anti-free-market policies in the realms of taxes, regulation, and campaign finance reveals a philosophical ambivalence, if not hostility, about limited government and personal freedom.

Contrast that to what I wrote back in May 2005:

On the issues I care about (life, taxes, defense, business, etc.), Thompson was very solid, as this analysis of his Senate voting record shows. His lifetime ACU ranking was very commendable 86. His lifetime ADA rating was a highly commendable 5

And while the Club for Growth criticized Thompson’s support of McCain-Feingold, consider the rest of their assessment:

Senator Thompson’s eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.

His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.

Finally, while we can debate how much daylight there is between Thompson and McCain on the issues, when it comes to temperament, judgment, and personality, I though Thompson won hands down. As I’ve said before, I find McCain “arrogant, selfish, unintelligent, and generally smarmy.” I think the contrast in personality explains a lot.

Apropos of which, I’d endorse something Jim Geraghty wrote the other day:

Thompson more or less “debuted” with the 60 second video responding to Michael Moore, one of the most brilliant media messages we’ve seen in a long while from a conservative.

I think one of the reasons that video struck a chord with so many righty bloggers was because we’re constantly seeing, and confronting, insane political rhetoric from the left. It’s maybe even a an obsession of righty bloggers, or perhaps we give it more attention than it deserves. But every time Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell or Cindy Sheehan spout off, or Charlie Sheen goes off on his 9/11 conspiracy theories… every time Nancy Pelosi goes to meet with a dictator, or a prominent Democrat refuses to acknowledge progress in Iraq, or somebody on either side of the aisle suggests that wanting immigration law enforced is inherently racist, every time somebody puts out some insane conspiracy theory that suggests President Bush is behind terror attacks…

We on the right hear it, we get driven up the wall by it, we try to push back in our own limited way, and we’re waiting for somebody with a bigger megaphone than us to push back. ... Along comes Fred, who doesn’t act as if rebutting Moore’s propaganda is beneath him, and he points out that Moore likes to snuggle with censoring, brutal dictators, he suggests Moore is mentally unstable… and we loved it. We’ve been looking for this combativeness from a conservative for years, and it makes Giuliani’s “I don’t need Michael Moore to tell me about 9/11” sound like Marquess de Queensbury rules. To quote Frank J, we’ve been looking for somebody to “punch the hippies.”

I think that’s what I had in mind back in May of 2005 when I wrote Draft Fred. I thought Thompson had the right mix of policies and personality to make a great President. I still think he’d be a great President, but boy did he turn out to be a lousy candidate.

Having said all that, I must admit that I find McCain the least objectionable of the remaining 4 major candidates. I can’t see myself voting for any of these guys on Feb 5 in the California primary. If we end up with a McCain-Clinton race in November, however, I’ll reconsider my plan to sit out the 2008 general election.