Jay Reding.com

Power Line notes that Fred Thompson is losing ground in polling in key primary states:

I think there are several reasons why Thompson’s campaign has not, so far, taken off as some expected. Thompson is a perfectly good conservative, but he lacks any particular stature as a one-and-a-half term Senator with no outstanding legislative accomplishments or policy innovations to his name. Given that he is also a quiet (some say lackluster) campaigner, it shouldn’t be surprising that so far, he hasn’t emerged as a powerhouse.

Also, Thompson’s appeal is based largely on the “none of the above” factor. He set out to appeal to the considerable segment of the Republican electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the existing field. That was a good and potentially fertile niche, but it means that in a sense Thompson has been running against the field. To the extent that Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have won over some previously skeptical voters, the need for a “none of the above” candidate may have diminished. And John McCain’s resurgence must have taken support away from Thompson, the candidate whose policy profile most nearly resembles McCain’s.

The appeal of Thompson’s campaign is that he’s a consistent conservative who is actually coming out with some strong policy prescriptions—especially in terms of Social Security reform. Granted, it may be a politically unwise endeavor to lead your campaign off with something so esoteric, but in a political climate devoted more to style than substance, there’s something refreshing about Thompson.

The fact that Thompson has been formally endorsed by the National Right to Life Foundation certainly helps. The fact that Mitt Romney had been lobbying for that endorsement also says something about the state of the race. Thompson is finding his niche as a consistent conservative in a race in which candidates either have great appeal to social conservatives and little to fiscal conservatives (Huckabee) or great appeal to fiscal conservatives and less to social conservatives (Giuliani) or candidates who have been accused of shifting their positions to match the prevailing political winds (Romney).

Thompson is not out—polling in these key states can be volatile, and many (including myself) figured John Kerry was dead in the water at this time four years ago. Still, Thompson is losing ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, and while he’s doing very well in South Carolina, it remains to be seen whether the winds won’t shift between the earlier states and that race.

What Thompson needs to do is start creating a grass-roots effort—and that means more time on the campaign trail. He’s got a firm grasp on the issues, in terms of fiscal issues, social issues, and national defense he’s the most consistent conservative in the race. The problem is that people don’t yet see him being able to win. To counter that perception, Thompson is going to have to get his boots on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire and start making a stronger impression with the electorate.

This race is totally up in the air. Romney and Giuliani have the inside track, but Thompson could pull ahead, especially with this key endorsement. McCain is doing better than one would expect (though not enough to win). Huckabee has been doing an excellent job of what Thompson should be doing—winning over social conservatives alienated by the top tier. There is no clear winner, and anything could change.

Jonathan Adler takes a look at Fred Thompson’s consistent federalism on key issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Ultimately, any “solution” to these issues will involve the basic principles of federalism, the way the Founders intended. (There’s an excellent article in the first issue University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy by Prof. Robert Delahunty on this topic. Sadly, it’s not online anywhere.) Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it should be as it’s simply bad law), that won’t end abortion in this country. The reality is that such decisions are designed to be left to the states. What works for South Dakota does not work for California. What works for Massachusetts may not work for Texas. The reason why the Founders created a federal system is to accommodate the reality that this nation is not homogenous in its views and that the powers of the federal government should be limited to enforcing only those things that have a national consensus behind them.

Thompson’s views may be consistent, but it’s an open question whether they’ll help him politically or not. Giuliani has similar views, and while he’s in the lead, many social conservatives are sitting on the fence so far. However, Thompson is showing that his commitment to the principles of federalism are genuine, even on tough issues. This nation needs a leader in the Oval Office who understands that one-size-fits-all federalist solutions don’t work, and so far the Republican front-runners seem to be moving in that direction.

Fred Thompson has unveiled his immigration policy today, and many conservatives will find it to their liking. The immigration issue is what is sinking the McCain campaign, and by staking a firm position on this issue, it’s clear that Fred Thompson is looking to show his conservative credentials.

The plan rejects an amnesty approach, instead focusing on increased border patrols, a strategy of attrition in removing illegals, and streamlining the process for those who want to come to the country legally.

All in all, it’s the sort of plan one would expect from a candidate who is trying to appeal to the GOP base. What’s different about Thompson’s plan is that it specifically targets the “coyotes”—the smugglers who move illegals (and often drugs) across the border. Taking down the “coyote” system would help to reduce illegal crossings as well as fight crime in general. It’s a smart plan, and I’m quite surprised that other candidates haven’t made a bigger deal of it.

Thompson also supports making English the national language and allowing for preferential treatment for non-citizens joining the armed forces.

Will this kill Thompson’s chances with the Hispanic vote? A smart strategy for Thompson would be to embrace American Hispanics—those hard-working people who migrated here legally and are valuable contributors to the American experience. The common view of Hispanics is that they’re all unassimilated and they’re frequently mixed in with illegals. That increasing numbers of middle-class Hispanics exist and that they’re being pooled in with those who haven’t followed the rules creates an opening for a smart conservative candidate to reach out to those voters. Hispanics are generally socially conservative, they generally have a hard work ethic, and many of them are patriotic Americans. A wise Republican would speak to them without trying to pander and show them why a culture that closely matches theirs benefits them rather than the Democratic culture of dependency that has failed other minority groups in the country. Part of that is making sure that illegals don’t flood the job market and remove the entry-level opportunities that legal immigrants need to get started.

There’s a big difference between speaking to the needs of an ethic group and pandering to them. The first Republican to walk that right balance there could profoundly change the American political scene.

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey likes what he sees, with some caveats. I’m not so sure that attrition is such a bad strategy. For one, getting rid of all illegal immigrants in short order is not going to happen. Mass deportations are not practical, and they’d only inflame tensions. We have to set reasonable priorities, and a strategy of attrition is a reasonable solution to the problem of illegal immigration.