On NRO’s the Corner television economist Larry Kudlow reports the Senator and Presidential candidate as being acceptably aggressive and substantial policy position-wise.

He attacked Warren Buffet’s tax-hike proposal on the rich as totally wrong, and Buffett himself as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

He agreed with Dick Armey that the GOP will lose if it departs from the first principles of limited government and lower tax rates.

He called the farm bill “disgraceful” and would veto it if he were president.

He said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are wrong on taxes. He noted that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of all tax collections now; that the tax code is progressive enough; that there’s plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thompson is a staunch free trader. He stood firmly behind his Social Security reform plan that would slow down future benefits and provide for private savings accounts.

On inflation, he said he’s not worried about today’s reported 3.5 percent increase in the consumer price index for October. Nor is he overly concerned about the weak dollar. Ben Bernanke is doing a good job, he said, though he refused to say if he’d reappoint the Fed chair.

On politics, the former Senator made it clear that he will continue to attack former mayor Rudy Giuliani’s support of federal funding for abortion, gun control, and sanctuary cities.

He said you might as well say what you believe is right; that life is too short for the aggravation of not telling the truth.

It was a lively interview, and Fred Thompson is not afraid to mix it up. I went at him. He came right back at me. It was great fun. He’s a serious and impressive man. Much stronger than when I interviewed him back in June.

Larry Kudlow also reported about the nature of Senator Thompson’s Iowa campaign. The only reason that Sen. Thompson’s Iowa campaign matters to me at all is this: MIGOP Chairman Saul Anuzis is working to set up a second GOP Presidential debate in Michigan. The only way to successfully lobby for a Presidential debate in one’s own state is to make it unique and to make to make it distinct, especially in regards to voices, and the number of voices. The hook is that the top three winners of the Iowa Caucus are the only candidates invited to (hypothetically) debate in Michigan. It is appropriate at this time to winnow out the supposedly lesser candidates. Debates take time and if a standard one is approximately two hours long it is more useful and substantial if the time is split between the three most likely candidates and not everyone who purchased a spot on the ticket. Thus while I would normally declare campaign resource allocation to any state besides Michigan as irrelevant to my interests, as the entire Tancredo Presidential campaign is now the least relevant campaign in my field of view, that the results of actions in Iowa directly impact Presidential candidate appearances in my state, it’s directly relevant.

The interview airs tonight at 7PM Eastern Time on CNBC. I hope I can catch it. Better yet, I hope that it is on YouTube.

On a related note, Ramesh from NRO comments about a Brookings Institute’s detractor of Fred’s Social Security plan. Let me clear this up. As a candidate Fred Thompson naturally has a plan to deal with our country’s Social Security SNAFU (The Editors of National Review Online, in general, approve of Senator Thompson’s policy plan). “Jason Furman, a liberal economist at the Brookings Institution” has (apparently negative) criticism of the plan. Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t understand his friend’s criticism and assesses Fred Thompson’s plan as sound.

Barak Obama actually claims that “that Thompson’s plan ‘undermines’ the promise that Social Security made to seniors and characterized it as an effort to privatize the government retirement system. ‘If we simply ask higher income Americans to contribute a little more, we can shore up Social Security for generations to come,’ he said.”

Barak Obama is younger than Fred and his career is ultimately less mature and his judgment is weaker for the lacking. He also carries a leftist ideology into the policy argument, which is why he insists that innocent citizens carry a burden for a system that shouldn’t require those citizens to put addition cash in. That is why Barak Obama’s points should be dismissed outright, but not before taking the words away from the inexperienced junior senator. Barak Obama won’t defeat the anointed one’s race for the Democrat nomination; he, personally, is irrelevant. As a voice of typical Democrat politics and ideology his words are useful to highlight a Democrat approach and how harmful it is to the American citizenry.

I think I’ll deal with that next.