Fred Thompson Was Critical to McCain-Feingold

Conservatives who think Fred Thompson is the answer to their dreams should take a look at Sen. John McCain's comments after the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold bill.

Conservatives hate McCain-Feingold almost as much as pro-choice measures. Yet Thompson, who is on the brink of announcing his presidential bid, was one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance bill.

Following the Senate vote of 59 to 41 for the bill on April 2, 2001, McCain held a press conference at the Capitol. With Thompson present, McCain named him and a few other senators as being so important to the bill's success that it would not have passed without their efforts.

Along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Thompson negotiated a compromise on the maximum amount an individual can give to any candidate per election. That limit, adjusted for inflation, is now $2,300, subject to an aggregate limit that includes other types of campaign contributions.

McCain called the compromise "critical" to getting the bill passed.

In a recent Townhall.com column opposing McCain-Feingold, Mitt Romney made the traditional conservative case against the law.

"The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations," Romney wrote. "Indeed, such advocacy can play an important educational role in elections, helping to provide information to voters on a range of issues. Do we really want government telling us when we can engage in political speech, and what form it can take?"

Because of the $2,300 limitation, campaigns have become marathons that rely on constant fund-raisers to survive. Members of Congress are on a perpetual treadmill to raise funds. As an election nears, they often spend more time raising funds than representing their constituents.

Nor does McCain-Feingold accomplish its intended purpose of limiting undue influence tied to money. If an individual arranges a fund-raiser that brings in $1 million, a candidate would theoretically feel more beholden to that person than to an individual who wrote a check for, say, $200,0000.

Aside from McCain-Feingold, in his eight years in the Senate, Thompson was the primary sponsor of only four pieces of legislation, none of any significance. "I worked for the music business for years when Fred Thompson was the senator from Tennessee," Hilary Rosen, former chief lobbyist for the Recording Industry Association of America and now a Democratic strategist, said on MSNBC. "So I worked with him in his office fairly regularly, and I have to say, as nice a guy as he is, he is lazy. He was a lazy senator."

"I've been friendly with Thompson for years," Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund said on The Journal Editorial Report. In the Senate, Fund said, Thompson "had a reputation for being a little lazy."

Even Thompson's high school football coach, Garner Ezell, told the Nashville Tennessean, "He was smart, but he was lazy."

While Thompson as senator conducted an intensive four-month investigation of campaign finance abuses, he kept a lean calendar except for meals at the Capital Grille or the Prime Rib.

Yet, as with all the candidates, the media love to dwell on atmospherics. Thompson is described as coming across as the character he plays on Law & Order: a person in charge.

That's fine for TV, but in real life, instead of focusing on politicians' latest statements to the press and how they come across on TV, voters should consider their track record. That's how you would go about hiring anyone for a job. FBI profilers teach agents that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

With terrorists trying to wipe out our way of life with nuclear devices, laziness is not a quality anyone wants in a president. If Thompson is the party's nominee, opposition ads will no doubt sound that very theme.

In contrast to Thompson, looking at the leading presidential candidates from both parties, none comes close to having the accomplishments of Mitt Romney. As outlined in the

During the 14 years Romney headed Bain Capital, its annual average internal rate of return on realized investments was more than 100 percent. It now manages assets of $40 billion.

Romney took over the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and turned a $397 million budget shortfall into a $56 million profit. As Massachusetts governor, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a surplus without raising taxes.

Along the way, Romney developed a health insurance plan that will cover all Massachusetts residents and is now being copied by other states.

As governor, all of Romney's actions fit the conservative mold, even more so than those of Ronald Reagan. When he was governor of California, Reagan increased the state income tax and signed a liberalized abortion law.

When it comes to abortion, Romney as governor took pro-life stands, which is far more important than statements he made in 1994 during a debate with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Romney vetoed bills that would have authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, and access to emergency contraception without parental consent.

Nonetheless, critics have managed to come up with complaints about Romney: He is a flip-flopper. If he believes what Mormons believe, he must be gullible. And he is too perfect.

While all the leading candidates have changed position on a range of issues, Romney has made a clear change on only one issue. While he has always been personally pro-life and vetoed bills opposed by those who are pro-life, he is, like Ronald Reagan, a convert to the pro-life position when it comes to public policy.

If Romney's Mormon beliefs make him gullible, Christians and Jews must be equally gullible. After all, they believe that men parted the Red Sea and walked on water, that Jesus paid taxes with coins from a fish's mouth, that a drop of oil burned for eight days, and that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.

Interestingly, polls show that those most likely to say they would not vote for a Mormon as president are most likely to describe themselves as liberals, who profess to be tolerant.

As for the claim that Romney is too perfect, that's another misconception: Romney doesn't have a dog.

State Department employees at the American embassy in Prague were shocked when Hana Koecher showed up to apply for Social Security benefits from America. During the Cold War, Hana confessed to helping her husband Karl Koecher spy for the Czech Intelligence Service and the KGB.

Besides having obtained a high-level translating job at the CIA, Karl would pick up information by attending sex orgies with White House, Pentagon and CIA officials. Karl introduced Hana, a sexy blonde with enormous blue eyes, to swinging. She liked it so well that she became a far more avid swinger than he was.

Because of her extreme sexual proclivities, Hana, a diamond merchant, quickly became a favorite on the orgy circuit. At one location in Virginia, Hana would have sex with three or four men at a time on the double bed. While Karl participated, he often retreated to the living room and chatted.

After the Koechers had been swapped for Natan Sharansky, I interviewed Karl and Hana for five days in Prague for my book Spy vs. Spy. To make sure I didn't go to any orgies, I brought along my wife Pam.

At one point, Karl became suspicious of her. He later told me he thought Pam, a former Washington Post reporter, was an undercover FBI agent and that I was her shill, simply there to enhance her cover story.

As part of the spy swap, Karl agreed in February 1986 to plead guilty to espionage. While Hana confessed, John L. Martin, the Justice Department's chief spy prosecutor, decided not to charge her because she was denied a lawyer when she asked for one.

Thus, Martin tells me, "Hana can obtain Social Security benefits; Karl cannot."