Really Lame AP Article on Fred Thompson

The Associated Press continues on its crusade to squash the Republican field of presidential candidates.

This article is laughable. It's entitled, "Thompson is sparse on policy positions."

Funny. I don't recall seeing an article like "(Insert Democrat's name here) is sparse on policy positions."

That's particularly telling given the fact that Democrats are so pathetically vague on policy, and when they do attempt to say something of substance, it often has disastrous consequences.

Barack Obama's incredible run of inane foreign policy statements would be an example.

And Hillary Clinton's game plan is more pander, cleavage, and fake accents than policy.

John Edwards, of course, will say anything, as he's led around by the nose by his wife, beholden to the radicals of the Left-wing blogosphere.

Yet Thompson is the one labeled "sparse" on policy.

WASHINGTON -- Republicans rushing to embrace Fred Thompson's would-be presidential candidacy might have trouble figuring out what he would do if he actually won the White House.

On most public policy issues, the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor has offered few, if any, specifics. Even on the dominant issue of the 2008 campaign — the war in Iraq — Thompson has carefully stopped short of wading into what he would do about the conflict should he inherit it, although he has generally backed President Bush.

And while not yet offering a broad foreign policy vision, some of Thompson's statements on the subject border on the impolitic, including comments maligning the Mexican, French and Russian governments.

What few clues there are about the direction a Thompson administration might take come from his growing body of online writings, a smattering of recent speeches and statements, and a somewhat sparse eight-year Senate record.

This clearly was written in direct response to the beating that Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken in recent weeks on foreign policy matters. It's like a debate rebuttal, an effort to pick up the slack and cover their tracks for them.

Thompson has made "comments maligning the Mexican, French and Russian governments"?

Give me a break about Thompson's allegedly mean remarks.

Has Thompson called for the invasion of Pakistan like Obama did?

More importantly, if you want to hone in on comments maligning governments, let's talk about how the Democrat candidates have ripped the Bush administration to shreds.

They have more criticism for the U.S. government than any foreign government. That's somewhat amusing considering that they are active players in the government and bear responsibility.

Even worse than how the Democrats have maligned the government is how they've maligned our military men and women.

I wonder what new statements Obama has in store regarding our troops engaging in the slaughter of civilians.

After setting up the premise that Thompson is sparse on positions, the article goes into specifics on where Thompson stands on the issues.

If this piece by AP writer Liz Sidoti were a high school essay, she'd be docked for lacking a coherent thesis statement.

Broadly, he favors a strong federalist approach that emphasizes personal liberties and fiscal conservatism.

"Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and, with too much power, such centralization has a way of compounding our problems," Thompson wrote in a recent column on his Web site. "This was among the great insights of 1787," when the Constitution was adopted, "and it is just as vital in 2007."

He adds: "How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom, are questions we must answer."

Thompson also:

_Splits with Bush on immigration, opposing the president's comprehensive immigration law overhaul bill and, instead, argues for increased border security as well as full enforcement of current federal immigration laws. The issue has divided the GOP, and Thompson is seeking the support of Republicans who object to illegal immigrants getting a path to U.S. citizenship.

In one online column, he says: "Federal law must be enforced, or our neighborhoods will continue to be the scene of chilling and lurid crimes committed by those who broke the law in the first place to come to America."

_Appears to take a hard-line approach to foreign policy. He criticizes the United Nations, saying the world body "seems to oppose human freedom rather than promote it." And, in one particularly incendiary commentary for ABC radio in April, he carried on about the perception of the U.S. around the world and its relationships with certain countries.

He assails Mexico on immigration, arguing that leaders there "apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own." He adds: "The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo."

Thompson saves his most aggressive comments for Russia, contending that ex-KGB agents "apparently" run the country, use their oil wealth to engage in blackmail, and dispose of people who cross them. "Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."

_Emphasizes individuals' right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to own and keep property. He suggests in one online piece that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been deterred had those who were at least age 21 and met certain criteria been allowed to carry concealed weapons on school grounds. In the Senate, Thompson voted against requiring criminal background checks for purchases at gun shows.

In a recent commentary, he assailed a 2005 Supreme Court decision giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

_Calls Bush's tax cuts a "success story" that helped grow the economy and says: "Letting them expire would amount to a tax hike of historic proportions." He also says the president should hold the line on spending.

Thompson already ranks in the top-tier of the GOP field in national polls and is in strong contention as well in early voting states. But he significantly lags his top long-running rivals in organization and money.

_On Iraq, Thompson said recently in London: "We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of utter weakness."

Based on what Sidoti lays out here, is it really that hard for voters to figure out what Thompson would do if he actually won the White House?

It seems much clearer to me than what Hillary would do, and she's been running for the presidency as far back as when Bill was rushing through all those last minute pardons before President Bush took the reins of the country in January 2001. Actually, it goes back farther than that. Hillary began running for president when she became a New Yorker.

This article spells out more about Thompson's philosophy than months of Obama's substance-free speeches, laden with platitudes. Of course, he does much better when he says nothing. When Obama gets down to details, he goes down the tubes.

Bottom line:

I think these unfounded attacks by libs on Fred Thompson's record and political philosophy, as well as the despicable slams on his wife, reveal how threatened the Left is by a strong candidate that many Republicans are poised to support.