Fred Thompson has been making a lot of good noises about federalism. But there's one aspect of it on which the campaign has no comment.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the [marijuana] raids. While he’s right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs.

So is he a federalist, or a fair-weather federalist? As Radley Balko notes:

...you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both.

And it should be noted, that despite his favorable position on this particular issue, Obama's no federalist, either. For instance, I strongly doubt that he believes that abortion is something that should be left to the states...

"I strongly doubt that he believes that abortion is something that should be left to the states"

Actually, I believe that is exactly what he has said.

I can't understand how opposition to the war on drugs is not carrying a principle too far, exactly in the same way as freedom of speech extremists want to take the Constitution to be a suicide pact and reveal all our intelligence secrets.

Some of my neighbors will be overly susceptible to drugs. My neighborhood will turn into a bad place if I don't try to keep them off of it. It's to my benefit and to my neighborhood's benefit to keep control of powerful chemically addicting substances.

"I strongly doubt that he believes that abortion is something that should be left to the states"

Actually, I believe that is exactly what he has said.

Sorry, that was bad wording. I was referring to Osama...

Some of my neighbors will be overly susceptible to drugs. My neighborhood will turn into a bad place if I don't try to keep them off of it. It's to my benefit and to my neighborhood's benefit to keep control of powerful chemically addicting substances.

Well, if the War on (some) Drugs actually controlled your neighbors' use of them, you might have a point.

I emphasize, "might."

Splitting a few hairs, here aren't we? If drug intervention is the only blotch on a wonderful federalist record, so be it.

Compared to the other candidates foibles and failings, it's nothing.

"Osama's no federalist." Did you mean Obama?

> Some of my neighbors will be overly susceptible to drugs. My neighborhood will turn into a bad place
> if I don't try to keep them off of it. It's to my benefit and to my neighborhood's benefit to keep control
> of powerful chemically addicting substances.

Prohibition doesn't keep you in control of powerful chemically addicting substances. It puts organized crime in control.

Some of your neighbors might be overly susceptible to alcohol, tobacco, or cocaine. The question is, would you rather have them buying it from Jack Daniels or Al Capone? Which one is a greater threat to your neighborhood?

Did you mean Obama?

Yeah, him too.

Osama, Obama, it's all good... ;-)

So is he a federalist, or a fair-weather federalist?

If he's a fair-weather federalist he's more federalist than the rest of the candidates.

Rand, how many addicts have you known? I mean, known very, very well? I've known several. This isn't a joke and it isn't something for libertarian theorists to wrangle over. It's the devil and it needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Biochemistry is a hard science, Rand. Study it. See the effects of addiction close up. Then come back and post about it.

Following the constitution to the letter, the federal government in empowered to regulate drug traffic across state lines. Production, sales, and use of drugs entirely within the bounds of a state is up to the discretion of the state.

But since when does this government respect constitutional bounds?

Rand, how many addicts have you known? I mean, known very, very well?

Many. Including in my own family.

And when I was a teenager, my step-mother was a drug-treatment counselor.

KTC,
I to have known addicts and seen addiction. But the DEA is wistling in the wind and everybody knows it. Illicit drugs prices fluctuate with supply and demand. But the DEA has never made a dent in overall availability of those drugs.

Thompson's the best choice from the right we have. He's "the name" running as a Republican that is the best bet for a conservative President. Giuliani and Romney may be as well known, but they hardly qualify as conservatives.

You can be a federalist, and know better than to bring up a surely lost cause on the election trail, and thus end up a drug warrior. There's nothing preventing federalists from being pragmatic, right?

I think the failure of the DEA is being overrated, though. They're not going to suddenly stop all drug use -- anyone that expected otherwise might as well stick their head in the sand -- but they've made a lot of folks more aware and willing to provide help for drug abusers that they otherwise would have never known about.

They're not the most federalist group, but it's hard to argue that that the subject matter doesn't have a significant effect on interstate commerce, if only from what would happen when twenty stoners all get on the freeway at once.

I don't like a lot about how they work, but that's more under general legal abuse whether it's on a federal or local level (and thus more a civil rights issue than a federalism one).

Actually Fred is showing signs of great confusion. George Will seems to think he is toast:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202025.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Too bad. Seems like an honest nice guy who won't make much trouble if elected. And an inspiration for aging guys who fantasize about hot much younger wives. ;-)

George Will has been wrong before and on numerous occasions. George is just schilling for Rudy.

Mark Levin thinks Will is full of it and has evidence to back it up.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTMxMTQ4YTRhMmMwMDhmY2E2MzY4M2I0YTAzODIwMjI=

"George Will on Thompson [Mark R. Levin]

George Will has some sorting out to do. And it wouldn't be the first time. Consider that latest column of his.

Let's stipulate for argument's sake that Fred Thompson has no good explanation squaring his conservative principles with his support for McCain-Feingold. It's a legitimate issue. However, if you support a candidate who has taken the wrong positions on the First, Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments, and whose view of the Constitution led him to endorse government-funded abortion on demand, then you have to wonder about that candidate's conservative principles, do you not? That candidate is Rudy Giuliani, and among his first supporters was George Will. So, the question for George Will is, what standard are you using to evaluate these candidates? The standard in Rudy's case appears to be his management skills as a mayor. I imagine Will doesn't support Rudy for his position on the war given that Will is opposed to the war. In Thompson's case, Will complains Thompson's not conservative, pointing to McCain-Feingold. But in 2000 Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a very big supporter of McCain-Feingold and had been for a long time. And, in recent weeks, Rudy said if he wasn't running for president, he'd support McCain. I think Will needs to square his own thinking. If anything, his approach underscores Rudy's weaknesses, and apparently his own.

09/13 11:09 AM
"

Even though it is intellectually honest to admit the war on drugs is a failure, it is political suicide to do so. The overwhelming majority of American voters think the government needs to do more to stop drug crime. You can be in favor of our war on drugs without being an antifederalist, just as you can be in favor of taking guns away from felons and the insane without being antigun.

And Rudy wants McCain as his running mate. You'd think George Will would have noticed that.

If Rudy is the nominee, he WILL choose McCain as VP. And vice-versa.

However, as much as I want FRED! to win, if the choice next November is Rudy McRomney or Hillary Obama, the choice is clear!!!