Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?

I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.

Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.

What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.

Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.

The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.

In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.

Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.

The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.

The question remains, regardless of what most Americans believe or don’t believe, what are the realistic options regarding this war? Is a pullout, or as Democrats like to phrase it, a phased redeployment, actually a viable option? What can be expected if we do pull out? I think there are a couple of obvious answers that cannot be easily swept away.

First, American credibility will be decimated for the foreseeable future, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. We have already had too many instances where we did not follow through with our commitments and the world already suspects that we cannot be depended upon to do what we say we will do. Perhaps that is a consequence of our form of government, although historically we had a much better reputation. From here on out we will not be able to gain allies in any serious international endeavor because the world will now that when it gets tough we bail out.

As serious as such a consequence may be, it is not as serious as the second difficulty with the redeployment strategy. As noted above, much of the world already expects that when it gets really tough the US will run. Indeed, Osama bin Laden said as much following our exodus from Somalia and that has been the stated strategy of Islamic fascists the world over. They know they cannot beat the US in a military sense. So their strategy has been to make it too costly to continue to engage them. They understand that the longer they drag this out the less support the President will have at home and, eventually, that support will dry up and he will have little choice but to withdraw.

So what happens then? The Islamic fascists declare their victory over America to start with. And as much as politicians may want to deny it, the claim will be valid. And with that victory will come an incredible increase in the ability of the Islamic fascists to recruit. Their approach will have been fully validated and new recruits will flood in in numbers never before imagined.

And who will be running this new army of Islamic terrorists? Probably Iran. And since we already know what Iran’s goals are, it will not be surprising if shortly thereafter the incidents of terrorism in Israel increase dramatically. Of course, Israel will only be the next step, not the last step. The Islamic fascists refer to Israel as the little Satan. Great Satan is reserved for the US. And if you labor under the false belief that they will change that view if we pull out of Iraq, lets just dispel that right now. Make no mistake, They WILL come after us here on American soil and their goals will far exceed 9/11.

While many Americans have fallen for the ridiculous assertion that Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you may believe about the start of the war, whether justified or not, the Islamic fascist themselves claim that Iraq is now the central front in that war. Anything short of complete and total victory there will be disastrous for the US and the world.

I am not the best prognosticator around and I don’t claim to have any sort of crystal ball. But I know this much, the troop increase that President Bush is starting to implement is, at worst, the minimum required at this moment. Regular readers will know that I am not a Bush cheerleader. He has often disappointed me because he is not a conservative. But he is the Commander in Chief and he is the only person in the world who is capable of waging this war, a war that absolutely must be waged. I don’t know if Bush will use these additional troops in an effective way. My gut instinct is that he won’t because America simply does not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Still, the alternative to adding troops is far worse.

I urge all Americans who value freedom to support the President now. I’m not asking you to like him or approve of his overall job as President. I don’t approve of his overall performance. But he, our troops and the world need us to stand as one and win this conflict. The consequences of failure are simply too dreadful to contemplate.

It has been painfully clear to me for some time that the Democrats do not oppose the President’s ideas per se. What they really oppose is any possibility of a Bush success. The Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than allow a Bush victory there. They apparently believe they can deal with the mess later and if they can’t, they can blame in on Republicans. It’s all about winning the White House in ’08.

This is an extremely short sighted view. I certainly understand either party pulling out the stops to win the White House. But are there no stops that should remain? How far is too far to go in the name winning power? It’s been often said that in times past politics stopped at the water’s edge but those days are long behind us.

The reality is, we are not engaged in a battle for control of the US government. We are engaged in a war for the very survival of western civilization. What I cannot understand is why Democrats can’t grasp that fact. It’s not just that losing in Iraq would be damaging to American prestige around the world, although it would. It’s not just that losing in Iraq will strengthen Iran, even though it will. The reality is this. If we don’t “do what is required” to defeat Islamic fascism our very existence as a free society will be in jeopardy.

There have been plenty of mistakes in Iraq. I have believed almost from the beginning that we needed more troops there. Regular readers know that I am not a big Bush supporter. He has made mistakes. But he, at least, seems to grasp the ramifications of a US lose in Iraq. He understands that we face, perhaps, the most dangerous, insidious enemy we have ever faced as a nation and as a civilization.

President Bush has my support in increasing troop strength in Iraq by twenty thousand and I say increase it even more if necessary. As Churchill said, sometimes is is not enough to do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required, regardless of the cost. Our forbears understood that and they did what was required. Are we willing to do the same today. Is freedom worth fighting and dying for? I say it is.

Saddam was hanged shortly before dawn after being found guilty of ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite men and boys following an assassination attempt. He will not be missed.