Revitalized Thompson Ready To Surge

National Review Online: With His Honest Message, GOP Hopeful Set To Fight For This Election

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Larry Kudlow.

---

An energetic and forceful Fred Thompson sat down with me last week on "Kudlow and Company" to talk politics and the economy. The former Tennessee senator was in good form - more animated than I’ve seen him, and definitely a different person than the one I interviewed six months ago.

I asked him about Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader. Armey recently predicted that Hillary Clinton will be the next president, reasoning that the GOP has departed from the first principles of limited government and lower taxes. Armey said budget overspending and the proliferating corruption of earmarks are what led to the landslide defeat of Republicans a year ago. To date, Dick Armey is unimpressed with the circa 2007 GOP message.

And Thompson agreed. He said, “If we don’t tend to business we are going to be in big trouble. Pendulum’s swinging against us. We are down in the polls. Independents are leaning the other way [where they] used to lean with us. So we’ve got to . . . adhere to the principles that made us a great party and a great nation.”

That was a strong dose of honesty and self-examination. Good for Fred Thompson.

Speaking of limited government and budget overspending, I asked if a President Thompson would veto the $300 billion earmark-pocked pork-barrel farm bill now before Congress. He called this legislation “disgraceful,” noted that it wouldn’t even help small family farms, and that it would block the expansion of world free trade.

When I asked him about Warren Buffett, the famous investor billionaire, Thompson turned up the heat. In testimony before the Senate last week, Buffett advocated a whole series of tax hikes, such as an increase in the death tax, higher capital gains and dividend taxes, and more taxes on private partnerships, hedge funds, and private-equity buyout firms. Thompson labeled this policy dead wrong. He said Buffett is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. He argued that the wealth of the government is the not the same thing as the wealth of nations, and that history proves lower tax rates promote economic growth.

And he said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are blind to all this. He noted that the top 5 percent of income earners now pay 60 percent of all tax collections; that the tax code is progressive enough; that there’s plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

We talked about his controversial Social Security reform plan that would slow down future benefits by indexing them to inflation rather than wages, while providing for add-on private savings accounts with a government match, much like the system for 401(k)s.

Lower benefits? Isn’t that the proverbial third-rail of politics? Not according to Mr. Thompson. He said big problems ought to be tackled: “If you can’t do the right thing, say what you believe and what everybody really basically knows, why do it? Why bother? Life is too short for the aggravation.”

Thompson wants to tell the truth about Social Security and force everyone else in the game to respond. This issue is a real character-building definer for Fred Thompson. No one else on the campaign trail, in either party, is willing to discuss Social Security in such frank terms.

But that’s the revitalized Fred Thompson. The more I challenged him, the more animated he became. He simply refused to stand down.

Some people say Thompson doesn’t have the fire in his belly to go the distance. I don’t think that’s true. And I’m not picking or endorsing any candidates here. But Thompson has an honest, clear, straightforward message of economic freedom and problem solving.

Then I brought up the CNBC/Wall Street Journal debate of a few weeks ago, when Thompson slammed Rudy Giuliani. I asked if he intended to continue to pound Giuliani on the campaign trail. He said, “I haven’t pounded all day.” I asked, What about yesterday? He said, “Well, we’re pointing out some policy differences. [Giuliani] believes in federal funding for abortion. He went to court to stop our bill outlawing sanctuary cities. He’s never met a gun-control bill he didn’t like.”

A sharp-edged Fred Thompson.

Can he win? His campaign strategists told me they are pouring tons of money into Iowa advertising. They see a strong opportunity for a Thompson surge in the state, undermining Mitt Romney and inflicting damage on Giuliani. Walking off the set, Thompson told me this election will be about peace and prosperity. And he intends to fight hard.

[taddles-2009]

But greedy whining is all you''re gonna get from the Repubs, they are the party of "all for me". they don''t want top pay taxes yet they want all the services txes pay for so really what they want is someone else to their taxes for them. They don''t want universal health care because then someone might ask them to pitch in a few bucks and God knows a few bucks might break a Conservatives bank account.

Perhaps we should start treating the Repubs like the greedy pigs they are and start making bacon out of their tax fattened carcases.

[balto_babs]

Quit the conservative BS about how unfair the inheritance tax amd how it is costing your children. Until this country get''s it priorities straight and NEVER again allows children to die for lack of dental care, just stop your greedy whining!!!
If Thompson and all the Republican candidates are so gung-ho about the war in Iraq then let''s pay for it now with a war tax (as we did in the past) and not leave our children hundreds of billions in debt.

[clestes-2009]

And if think the surge is working or has a chance of working, you don''t understand anything at all about Iraq. Success in Iraq is measured only by political reconciliation. Reduction in violence is MEANINGLESS without it. The moment US troops leave, the warlords will take over because there is NO UNIFIED IRAQ. That is not going to be a good thing.

So predictions of democratic success next year are not "looney", but based on the feelings of Americans today and the facts that by next year the ecomony will be worse than today plus the middle east will still be a caudron of chaos.

Take a good look around. Oil is at $100 a barrel. That alone will doom the republicans.

[clestes-2009]

fredgrad2000

I probably read more in a day than you do in a month. I also read a wide variety of articles from international newspapers to nonpartisan opinion polls. They are all saying the same thing.

The American people are distinctly angry and unhappy with those in power now. They are pissed that Congress has not gotten done what they wanted, which was an end to Iraq. And guess who they blame for that?? You got it, the republicans. By more than a 2 to 1 margin.

The republican party has got major problems with its identity. They used to stand for fiscally conservative, small government, strong defense. Not anymore. Under this version of the rep party all those mainstays are trashed. The average joe of the rep party has no one to identify with. They have completely lost the moderate republican. Those people are now either independents or democrats.

There is not a single rep candidate except Ron Paul that appeals to the tradional republican. The party has been transformed into something that promotes empire building to build little Americas all over the world at a sky high cost in dollars, men, reputation and no matter how much is put into that effort, it is going to fail.

Look at history. There has never been an empire that did not crumble. And the one the neo-cons are dreaming of never even had a chance. Their idea was to reform the middle east into a bastion of democracy starting with Iraq.

[roger3815]

Franken Berry is a third string candidate with no hope of being the president--if America has any sense left. Why he even gets taken seriously is a mystery to me. It will take a whole lot more reality than some high-powered java can provide to enliven his campaign.

[fredgrad2000]

HSinCO - my error, I assigned some of my response to the arguments made by another posted below. But my point to you is still valid in my view; I pay the taxes the government has assigned and will continue to do so; I do not believe further taxation on those who have the capital to invest is wise economically or in the long-run will generate more tax revenue. 2 points: 1) it is generally accepted that money invested is worth more due to the multiplier effect of that money (ex: money invested is used to expand production, and new workers are hired as a result, etc.) than money simply spent (taking money from those with capital to invest is economically unwise), and 2) Higher tax revenues are a DIS-incentive to work and expansion; thus ensuring a smaller tax-base even if taxed at a higher rate.

[creeper00]

Nice try, Mr. Kudlow. Fred Thompson is already history.

[fredgrad2000]

Freedom is not free. And its cost is not only blood. It takes $$$$ to have a vibrant and free democracy. What do you have against democracy that yuou don''''t want to pay for it? - Posted by HSinCO

I pay my taxes; and I pay at a higher rate of my income than most people, but it is faulty logic to assign to the government the right to tax the same money TWICE in order to redistribute wealth. Now, this is a legal issue, if its law, I''ll pay; I think its wrong, but my biggest issue is with your logic that its proper because it will (and was intended to) prevent the establishment of an "aristocracy"? When did it become, outside liberal world, the government''s right to determine who could have how much wealth? I''m pretty sure that''s not in the constitution, even under the usual "living constitutional reading" of the left...

[fredgrad2000]

"Very good conservative bs. The purpose of the inheritance tax is to prevent a permanent aristocracy in America. It is something our forefathers thought was an exceptionally good path to pursue in the land where all men are created equal." - Posted by ELZ523

When did the Constitution establish the right of the government to determine how much is too much wealth and who is entitled to it? This is typical liberal redistribution of wealth nonsense; if I earned the money and was taxed on it, and want to leave for my children; the government shouldn''t be able to tax it just because I died!! They already taxed it; you whole premise is derived from rights to our government that don''t exist. When was the government granted the right in our constitution to determine who could accumulate wealth or not? And don''t quote me taxation law, because we are talking about money that has already been taxed!!

[fredgrad2000]

Ahhh, the loons are out in full force for Thanksgiving!! George Bush is unpopular because of the management of the Iraq War, period. Americans would still be supporting the war (WMD or not) by 70-80% if we had WON!! Americans do not like to lose; but the looney left''''''''s confidence is completely unfounded, Americans are no more liberal or left-wing than they were pre-Iraq!!




--------------------
----------------------------------------
--------------------

Posted by fredgrad2000 at 04:26 PM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse

"Uh, anyone who supports the policies of George Bush should be careful about throwing around words like loon." Posted by ELZ523

Except I''m right and that must drive you nuts; Americans still don''t oppose the fact that we invaded as a matter of principle, but as a matter of performance!! And you know it!! My point is proven by the election campaigns, no one who has a realistic shot is running on a platform of there is no war on terror or that we should never use our military; the issue is, rightly, Bush''s and his team''s PERFORMANCE in Iraq. I hold to my point, which you know is correct, if we had performed better in Iraq, had won the war rather than been bogged down, WMD or not, the support from the American public for the war and for Bush would be 70%, and 55%, respectively.

[lfitts1]

All you have do to understand this article is remember who wrote it--Larry Kudlow--if you have ever heard any of his views--he is as incisive as George W. Bush

[afmca]

When the Repub propagandists want to spread their lies they go to the NRO. This story cannot even be reused as TP in an outhouse in Alabama. Thompson is an idiot in the mold of Bush. He thinks this is another TV roll, but unfortunately the writers are on strike. What a worthless President he would make. What is scary is the many Repubs think he is deserving.

[jsilver2th]

this is a joke right?

[brianbwb-2009]

International Brian Online: The NRO Are The Only People Still Believing That There Are Honest Politicians, And That They Are Republicans.

[hsinco-2009]

Typical liberal nonsense based on the notion that the government in ENTITLED to a piece of all money you earn, inherit, win...ALL money. The simple truth is that that money was already taxed once; to the deceased; there is no good reason that a mother and father shouldn''''''''t be able to take their already-taxed money (that the tax and spend libs are free to earmark to high heaven) and leave it to their children. Their death is not and should not be a "taxable event"!!--------------------------------
----------------------------------------
--------

Posted by fredgrad2000 at 04:26 PM : Nov 20,



Freedom is not free. And its cost is not only blood. It takes $$$$ to have a vibrant and free democracy. What do you have against democracy that yuou don''t want to pay for it?

[mattgersz]

Fred Thompson: Biggest underachieving candidate in either party.

[denn034]

Go Thompson.

[elz523]

Ahhh, the loons are out in full force for Thanksgiving!! George Bush is unpopular because of the management of the Iraq War, period. Americans would still be supporting the war (WMD or not) by 70-80% if we had WON!! Americans do not like to lose; but the looney left''''s confidence is completely unfounded, Americans are no more liberal or left-wing than they were pre-Iraq!!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by fredgrad2000 at 04:26 PM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse

Uh, anyone who supports the policies of George Bush should be careful about throwing around words like loon.

[elz523]

The government has the right to tax whatever it likes. This is a right given to it by the people through our representatives. The government establishes the very system through which wealth is built and then protects that wealth. Without the government providing the rules for wealth accumulation and the currency of wealth, there is no wealth as we currently recognize it. When you are accumulating wealth you are simply doing a good job of applying the rules the government provides. Other than hard assets, what is wealth? It is a creation of the government. Tell us again why it isn''t fair for the government, that the establishes the game and makes the rules, to say that everyone gives up what they have at the end of the game, so that the new players all start out even.

[elz523]

Typical liberal nonsense based on the notion that the government in ENTITLED to a piece of all money you earn, inherit, win...ALL money. The simple truth is that that money was already taxed once; to the deceased; there is no good reason that a mother and father shouldn''''t be able to take their already-taxed money (that the tax and spend libs are free to earmark to high heaven) and leave it to their children. Their death is not and should not be a "taxable event"!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by fredgrad2000 at 04:26 PM : Nov 20,

Very good conservative bs. The purpose of the inheritance tax is to prevent a permanent aristocracy in America. It is something our forefathers thought was an exceptionally good path to pursue in the land where all men are created equal.