Posted on 10/03/2007 1:19:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Politico has one of the most interesting articles up about Fred Thompson published in quite a while. Most political observers focus on the polls, who raises what (plead guilty); in short, the details, but the Politico’s Roger Simon takes a closer look at how Fred Thompson handles himself and what kind of person he is and what kind of campaign he has.
When Roger asked Thompson whether the considers himself to be an “11th Commandment man” (never speak ill of a fellow Republican), the former senator answered that he’s more of a “12 Commandment man.” The 12th Commandment, according to Thompson: “Don’t speak ill of them until they speak ill of me. And then really speak ill of them.”
As Roger points out, until now, Thompson has presented himself as a folksy, good humoured guy, who doesn’t care all that much about what people say about him. That may, however, change. Soon.
In fact, he may already have changed his approach: in a recent speech he told his fellow Republicans that they have to “stay true” to their principles. When Roger asked him whether he was was refering to Rudy Giuliani, Thompson “made a face of mock horror and laughed.”
When Roger asked a follow-up question, how it could be that Giuliani - who is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights - leads in the national polls among (likely) Republican voters, Thompson answered: “I don’t know that people know his positions. That hasn’t really been part of the discussion up to now, far as I can tell. It seems that a lot of candidates have been campaigning for a long time and voters don’t know a lot of things about a lot of them.”
And it seems to me that Thompson will not let his fellow Republican candidates get away with that much longer.
He further believes, he told Roger, that the Republican candidates don’t have to try and find the “Reagan Democrats.” According to Thompson, these Democrats “have not gone anywhere.” Instead, it’s the Republican Party as a whole that has moved. He explained that he was referring to “big spending” and “ethical lapses” which have a “dampening effect on our own.”
When asked about the possibilities of a Republican victory in 08, Thompson explained that he believes that - although the sentiment is pro-Democrats at this point in time - there’s still time to change the tide; he believes that if he campaigns hard, he’ll be able to convince enough Independents that he’s the best person to lead the country for the coming four years.
Combine Thompson’s threatening words with the criticism and threats coming from the self-proclaimed leaders of the Christian conservatives in America, and Giuliani may be in some serious trouble. He hasn’t been attacked all that much yet - except for Mitt Romney, who has most certainly gone after Giuliani - but that has changed and will most likely continue to change. Giuliani’s opponents realize that if they don’t attack him - truly attack him - he may very well take the nomination. Not only does that mean that they might as well give up, it also means that their party will be lead by someone who disagrees with the party’s base about the issues it once cared most about.
What has any of the other candidates done to “qualify” for president? BTW the founders had only two qualifications - citizenship and age.
Why Rasmussen thinks that Fred has a much better chance of winning than the conventional wisdom thinks:
By the way, that’s confirmed in FR’s own unscientific poll - FDT leads all candidates, and we Freepers are among the best informed voters out there.
By the way, for all of the folks on the thread bashing Fred or bashing Duncan Hunter - come on, just stop it. Either one would make a very good or great President. MUCH more importantly, either one is head and shoulders above the rest of the field - and that’s who we have to compare these men to, not some theoretical ideal. Neither will be perfect, but neither was Reagan (who seems to be everyone’s favorite President here on FR, including mine).
I personally like Duncan Hunter’s stances on the issues better than Fred’s. In a perfect world where pure merit won out every time, he’d end up as the nominee and beat the Dem, and I’d be honored to vote for him. But that world only exists when your eyes are closed. Here in the real world, Fred is cruising along somewhere in the 20’s, while Duncan Hunter is significantly under 5%. Even though I’m not happy that a man like Hunter is seemingly being ignored, that’s the fact. He has no chance to win the nomination at this point and, more importantly, IMHO he couldn’t beat Hillary. The man won’t even be able to win his home state. Sad but true.
So I’ve settled on Fred, and not without enthusiasm. He says an awful lot that I like: he’s pro-gun, in favor of low taxes, true federalism, wants a strong foreign and defense policy, wants to control the borders, is against homosexual marriages, etc., etc. Again, the man and his record aren’t perfect...but so what, we’re not nominating someone for the pantheon of greatest political theorists of all time - we’re nominating someone to take on whoever the Dems nominee, who at this point is pretty clearly Hillary. Can you imagine what will happen if that anti-gun, pro-tax, anti-defense Socialist witch becomes President?
Fred has, IMHO, the best chance of all Republicans to beat her. Let’s look at the rest **who have any chance of getting the nomination**:
Rudy? No way. Another guy who won’t win his home state. He already lost to Hillary, except that he tried to avoid it by leaving the race, citing his cancer. It was an excuse. Even if not, he was badly trailing her at the time he withdrew. He simply doesn’t have enough differences with her to get people motivated. Also, many Republicans simply won’t vote for him (up to 27%, according to one poll I saw). Not only is the party’s base not going to be fired up, they’re going to be actively turned off - not a great recipe for winning elections, esp. against a pretty well-oiled political machine that revels in getting down in the mud and fighting there with no rules. He’ll get CREAMED.
Romney? Besides the fact that I don’t see him as the nominee, he flip-flops a bunch - which Hillary will use against him. He doesn’t, perhaps cannot, fire up the Republican base, and without that, fuhgedaboudit.
McCain? Puhleeze! The man was a hero in Vietnam, and I will always have immense respect for what he did there. Its just the things he’s done since then that bother me. First, start with McCain/Feingold - a more pure case of an unconstitutional law I could not find (and the Supremes REALLY dropped the ball on this one), and he SPONSORED it. His status as an attention-hogging “maverick” comes with a price - you tick off a lot of people in your own party, people who won’t open their wallets, work for you, talk to family & friends about you, and maybe not even vote for you. His apparent inability to control his temper is not exactly the first characteristic that I look for in a President with his finger figuratively on the button. Besides, he shoots himself in the foot about every 2 weeks. He has no chance - he’d go down like Dole did in ‘96.
Which leaves who, besides Fred? No one, that’s who. Fred is a genuine conservative, even if not a perfect one. He is very genuine, humble, comfortable in his own skin and with his views, very able to interact with the average person, very confidence-inspiring. This stuff attracts people, even those that don’t agree with you. For those that do agree with you, its like a drug (just like Reagan was for those of us old enough to have been politically aware back then). He’ll fire up the base - in spades. He’ll attract a lot of Reagan Dems and independents. How is Hillary going to capture any of the Bush ‘04 states from him? Heck, it’ll be the other way around - SHE will be on the defensive, spending lots of time in her base states to make sure she’s got them, and more time in those states that were close in Kerry’s favor last time - some of which she’ll lose. I’m going to go out on a limb - I think that Fred can beat Hillary as badly as Reagan beat Carter.
Duncan Hunter will make a phenomenal Secretary of Defense in the Thompson Administration, and be very complementary to John Bolton over in State.
BINGO
Obviously Abe Lincoln was important and prominent, before being elected President, otherwise he wouldn’t have been elected. My point was that he didn’t meet the usual criteria that many think need to be applied to Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson obviously isn’t going to found the Republican party or abolish slavery, because those things have already been done. However, all of the other candidates (who have any real chance of winning) are likely to do great harm to America, if elected. I believe that this is not the case with Fred, and that is probably sufficient to win my vote, and likely the votes of many millions of others.
Maybe that has more to do with the fact that the criteria of 150 years ago don't pertain to the modern election, so comparing Lincoln's credentials to Thompson's is a silly analogy. The last Senator without any Executive experience to be elected was JFK, 50 years ago, and that election was likely stolen in Chicago. Even LBJ had experience as Potus, VP and Senate Majority Leader before election.
Nevertheless, I strongly doubt that is a "top of mind" consideration for voters. They are typically more comfortable with Execs for POTUS, but there really are no outstanding govt. Exec resumes in the race on either side. The Dems have Gov. Richardson, and the Reps have a couple of one-term Governors and a big city Mayor. I think everyone else is a Congress critter.
Hey, Sturm. Thanks for answering my question politely and without rancor. :)
If you think it's a "silly analogy", then you didn't understand my point, and I have explained more than enough for anyone who wants to understand.
***************
SOP for the anti-Thompson crowd. You have far more patience than I.
The most attractive Republican to this Christian and Republican is Fred Thompson. He meets all U.S. Constitutional requirements for the presidency.
What a terrific post.
“What has Fred done to qualify him for the presidency?”
He inspires.
With humor, hope and confidence. With stature, humility, fortitude and discretion.
He has the qualities we need.
Integrity, intelligence, sincerity, perseverence.
He has the family support.
A wife who is not afraid to appear in public ~ gracious, supportive, radiant, well-spoken. A huge plus for him.
All the things that have happened in Fred’s life are because of hard work and having people who believed in him. He borrowed his way through college and paid off the student loans when one of his children started college. He worked multiple jobs all the way through college. He fell into the acting by chance, a good opportunity, and worked it into his schedule [not quitting work as a lawyer or Senator].
So you say “what has Fred Thompson ever led but a gifted life....” I say, a life of hard work and effort and commitment to his principles. When he was an actor he was also doing radio commentaries and writing blogs which required long days. I’ve heard 16 hour days. He got where he is not by smoke and mirrors but by hard work and commitment to his principles. And a few mentors who gave him opportunies, because he had proven to them good character and principles.
You’re not overly hampered by truthfulness.
Cool it.
>I watched 60 minutes the other night and was so moved by Clarence Thomas. CBS was fair. I’m still stunned about that.<
Thanks for your post, AuntB.
I remember watching the wrenching Clarence Thomas hearings. We were visiting relatives in Green Valley, AZ at the time, and we were all appalled at the terrible display of leftist attack on this fine gentleman. I will certainly go out and buy Thomas’s book, “My Grandfather’s Son”. I’ve heard it is a winner.
You play with paper dolls? How cute.
Oh stop it. You don’t want it answered.
That is an answer in itself...
The CFR is not 2 centuries old....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.