Fred Thompson doesn't care about the Constitution

I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I was rather annoyed by the first line of Fred Thomspon's post-debate e-mail:

Yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people.

Huh? Debating (during a debate) an important constitutional issue -- one that directly affects the president's job, no less -- is "partisan bickering" and "playing politics"? WTF? It would be different if Giuliani was questioning Romney's religion or Mitt was gabbing about Rudy's personal life, but disagreeing substantively about issues is not inherently a bad thing!!

This sort of dumbing-down of political discourse is really quite irritating. Just because people feel passionately about an issue doesn't necessarily mean they're "bickering" or "playing politics." Sometimes, "partisanship" is a good thing, and those who claim to "rise above it" are just sanctimoniously spouting vacuous nonsense. It's like what George F. Will said about the claim that Michael Bloomberg represents "post-partisanship": "If so—if he is not a partisan of any large, controversial causes—why is he needed?"

Comments

[Andrew]

I agree with Fred. Arguing about the line-item veto in a presidential debate is pointless when it's SCOTUS that will decide the issue (and indeed, it already has). This isn't a law school or other academic debate, it's between candidates trying to demonstrate their conservative bonafides and win votes. Taking opposite jurisprudential positions on something like the line-item veto is hardly a vote-swayer. Are you really going to judge a presidential candidate based on whether he takes up Breyer's position and not Stevens'? Come on now, be serious!

Also, not that I disagree with your assertion that political discourse is being dumbed down, but really, the sound-byte media is far more to blame for that.

[David K.]

What are you talking about Andrew?? Its Stevens all the way!!! STEVENS STEVENS STEVENS!!!

Or did I agree with Breyer...

...

Never mind! :D

[Chris]

Andrew now hears the sound of two hands clapping....or is that the continued applause for Fred.

I'm not sure, it immediately stops whenever I begin typing...strange that.

[Joe Loy]

I don't understand why the Republicans can't seem to see that Mike Huckabee is Their Man. / Seriously. He's exactly what the dominant faction of the party is Looking for. And, there he is, Right there!

:)

[Alasdair]

Giuliani/Rice or Romney/Rice ...

[Trisha]

I have been supporting Thompson since before he officially announced. That said, as a Republican who occasionally pays attention to these debates (though not the debate from Tuesday, or whenever it was. At 4 in the afternoon, I have better things to do than to watch a debate. I have homework to check, kids to feed, laundry to do...you get the idea), I don't want to hear candidates debating the constitutionality of the line item veto. Quite honestly, that is something I don't care about. Give me a good debate about the things that really matter, specifically border security and illegal immigration. Thompson was right to say what he said. Is that really something that is important to the voters? I don't think so. It's a priviledge specific to the President. It's not going to change any time soon, and I'm not suggesting that it should. They should be debating about things that matter, not about unimportant non-voter issues.

Joe - I had to go look up Mike Huckabee just to see who he was and what he stood for. That's not a good thing when you're running for President.

[dcl]

Andrew, I think a Presidential candidate's understanding of the Constitution is quite important. For example, it would have been nice to know that our current President thought it best to piss all over it and light it on fire before placing him in office. Whereas it would appear that Giuliani might think there something to it. Romney thinks it best to ignore the bits he doesn't like and now it looks like Thompson is in the piss on and set fire camp with Bush.

So I should think this a rather relevant argument... Giuliani is right, the line item veto might be a good idea but it is Unconstitutional. And that, as they say, is that. Personally, I don't think an amendment to make it Constitutional is a good idea because the line item veto poses certain countermajoritarian difficulties and would be, in the long run, damaging to compromises between the executive and legislative branches. And the executive branch already has way too much power.

[dcl]

I shall re-iterate the main point I was making--how a person views their Constitutional obligations as President is very important. It is a question of whether or not they understand their job description--or at least whether or not you agree with their understanding of their job description. So I would think that a candidates understanding and approach to the Constitution a vital pice of information when selecting the leader of this nation. But then I often think you can learn a lot more about someone based on how they think generally than what they think on a given issue. If you go with what they think, you need to figure out what on ever issue that is remotely important to you. If you figure out how they think you can decided if their approach to issues meshes with yours and make a reasoned determination of whether or not you can trust their judgment on issues you haven't even thought about, much less thought it pertinent to ask about as well as those issues that are very important to you.

[Angrier and Angrier]

The only Republican who seems to have an understanding of the Constitution is Ron Paul, and he won't be getting the nomination.

[Josh Rubin]

To some extent, I agree with Trisha: give us something important to focus on, here.

I don't know when debates moved from substantive to worthless. I don't know when debates moved from debating to a bunch of guys just talking.

And as for what Fred said in his e-mail, Brendan, I've seen the transcript of the debate. Fred needed something that he could spin positively. The line-item veto is an important topic, but it isn't what most Americans really care about. Trisha has a point--who but guys like Brendan (er, political "nerds") would stop everything to watch a political debate at 4 in the afternoon. Unless someone says something earth-shattering (which doesn't happen anymore), only a minority of Americans seem to care.

Besides, Fred's candidacy peaked right before he actually announced running. Since then, he has been ineffectual (unless you favor drilling for oil in the Everglades).

[ndlaw2006]

Trisha, I don't mean to be rude, but anyone who has been paying attention even casually to the Republican nomination race knows who Mike Huckabee is.

I agree with DCL. It's like saying a candidate's position on abortion doesn't matter, because it's SCOTUS who will change or not change the legal foundation. Whether that's true or not (and I'm inclined to think it is and even as a pretty ardent pro-lifer, I don't really give two shits about how a presidential candidate feels about abortion) I don't think it's "playing politics" for candidates to debate one another on their individual views of a relatively contentious constitutional issue -- particularly when that issue is the scope of one of the president's enumerated powers.

[Brendan Loy]

No time to get into detailed responses to everything everyone has said, but I just want to echo the end of ndlaw2006's comment and return to the question of phraseology: "playing politics." That is what I object to: the idea that talking about a constitutional issue is "playing politics" and "partisan bickering," and that it's better to "rise above it." I'm not affirmatively defending the importance of the line-item veto debate; doing so isn't necessary to my point. I don't care if you, or I, or anyone else, happens to believe a particular substantive issue is important. That's a separate question. We all have different priorities. And if Thompson had said, "Giuliani and Romney have the wrong priorities," I wouldn't mind that as much. But that's not what he said. He condescendingly accused them of "playing politics" and "partisan bickering" just because they were debating an issue that he might think is less important than some other issues (or, more realistically, an issue that his advisers tell him doesn't poll well). In that sense, Thompson's rhetorical tactic here is dishonest. He's trying to paint his opponents as petty, when in reality, this is just an honest difference of opinion over what is the most important thing to debate about. As this comment thread demonstrates, rational people can reasonably disagree over the importance of constitutional issues like this one to a presidential campaign. Those who take a differing view from Thompson shouldn't be belittled as petty partisan politickers for that reason alone.

[ndlaw2006]

And Thompson's rhetorical trick is, sadly, very similar to the GWB approach -- discussing matters of constitutional importance is petty and unproductive, while repeating simple mantras like "compassionate conservative," "tax cuts," and "small government" with no specifics, details, or plans is the mark of a true leader.

Again, Jon Stewart had it right from the beginning. Lampooning the primary candidates' constant buzz-words and masturbatory references to Reagan, he proclaimed, "I bleed Christ and shit tax cuts!"

[Angrier and Angrier]

Just when I thought a Presidential candidate couldn't sound any dumber than Bush, Fred Thompson comes along. When he doesn't have a script in front of him, he sounds like a complete 'tard. At least Reagan took the time to memorize his lines.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Just when I thought a Presidential candidate couldn't sound any dumber than Bush, Fred Thompson comes along. When he doesn't have a script in front of him, he sounds like a complete 'tard. At least Reagan took the time to memorize his lines.

[dcl]

yeah, Reagan was also a better actor... Not saying much I know.

[Sandy Underpants]

Fred Thompson was the "none of the above" candidate of the summer. When people find out who he isn't, his campaign bid will go the way of Tommy Thompson.

Too bad most Americans are like Trish, dependant on the media to tell them who the candidates are for them. In the dawn of the "new media" with public opinion polls saying Ron Paul has won the majority of the debates, no news outlet even mutters his name. I guess it's alright since the people who support what he stands for are democrats and people that gave up pretending like "our vote" even matters.

[Andrew]

Brendan, take a look at the email quote again:

Yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics... .

Fred is nailing Giuliani and Romney for continuing their partisan bickering, this time by getting wrapped around the axle role-playing Breyer vs. Stevens. Fred's message is, stop the nonsense, focus on the issues relevant to voters, and take your message to the people. He's not saying the Constitution is irrelevant and these aren't important issues to decide, he's saying there are many things that are more important to be discussing right now and the candidates should rise above the bickering and talk to the people, not waste their time on the campaign bickering over relatively minor issues largely outside of their control to decide. It's a relatively simplistic message, and arguably vacuous, but it's absurd to extract from that comment that Fred is advocating a blatant disregard for the nuances of constituitional law. And again, the real culprit here is the way the media has reduced political discourse to what can be expressed in short sound bytes. You're simply reading far too much into Fred's comment.