Posted on 09/30/2007 9:30:53 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A couple of months ago - ages in political time, but amazingly short for those older than, say, five years - it seemed that if one Fred Thompson - actor - would decide to run for president, he would immediately receive the support of the conservative base of the Republican Party and he would leave all other candidates behind. In a less rosy picture, he would at least inspire many conservatives; no more “conservatives are unhappy with the candidates” would be the result of a Thompson-announcement.
Now, however, at the end of September 2007, it’s quite safe to say that it has proven more difficult for the former senator than he, and his supporters and allies, thought to build a strong base and to wipe out all opposition. Sure, Thompson became a frontrunner at the very moment he entered the race, but that doesn’t equal passion among those who say they’d vote for him in the primaries. In fact, while blogging, I haven’t noticed big groups of conservatives rallying around Thompson, with a conviction and passion the supporters of other candidates don’t have or - more importantly - although quite some conservatives have decided to support Thompson or at least talk positively about him, they still don’t seem to be satisfied.
The cause is, of course, that right after he announced, information came out that Thompson may not be as socially conservative as some thought. He may have lobbied for a pro-choice group or another, he didn’t fully agree with the Republican leadership in the 1990s about impeaching Clinton (because of which he received angry phone calls from his constituents in 1999), etc. In fact, when taking a closer look at his record as a Senator he may have “a solidly conservative voting record,” but “a review of thousands of pages of his papers archived at the University of Tennessee and interviews with his former aides show that he displayed little enthusiasm for divisive battles over abortion and other issues that motivate religious Republican primary voters.”
Besides that, the Times claims that Thompson was, quite simply, not very passionate about politics in general when he was a Senator. Of course, every Senator thinks politics are important, but Thompson wasn’t very enthusiastic. When asked about his greatest accomplishment by National Review, Thompson answered: “You mean, besides leaving the Senate?” Which isn’t exactly the answer a man who believed that he was doing something very important would give.
The charge that he was and is lazy may be untrue, but what does seem to have happened is that Thompson simply didn’t enjoy being a Senator; he didn’t enjoy the work he had to put into things he really didn’t care about; he didn’t enjoy fundraising. Now, all politicians say they dislike fundraising, but Thompson seems to dislike it more than most and he seems to be the kind of person - much like the author of this post - who can get very involved with something, and work hard at something; but he’s got to enjoy what he’s doing and he’s got to believe in it.
Records show that Mr. Thompson delved into the areas that mattered most to him, regularly writing his own speeches and demanding detailed memorandums that often ran well past the one-page limit favored by some senators. He focused on green-eyeshade issues like budget and regulatory reform that, while not exactly the stuff of headlines, have far-reaching impact. Believing that many matters are best left to the states, he voted against popular measures to create federal crimes. Former aides say he could be a stickler for preparation and would often be found in the reading room off his office, prepping for votes and hearings over a cigar.
“On the lazy charge, I have to chuckle because I was there sometimes until 1 in the morning working with the man,” said Paul Noe, a Thompson aide when the senator led the Governmental Affairs Committee.
More, Thompson also disliked - and continues to dislike - “the schmoozing and deal making necessary to become a heavy-hitter on Capitol Hill,” which may not sound like a problem to most, but it is a problem since Presidents have to “schmooze” (if it means what I think it does) and make deals. Presidents have to be masters, basically, at the political game. They’ve got to be able to deal with Congress, especially considering that if a Republican wins the presidency in 08, it’s quite likely that he’ll face a hostile Democratic Congress.
Again, it’s important to point out that Thompson most certainly is a conservative Republican and that he’s got the record to prove it. It’s not a matter of whether he’s conservative or not, though, it’s a matter of what his priorities are:
To judge from the ratings of interest groups, Mr. Thompson was a loyal Republican. He received a 100 percent score from anti-abortion groups, ardently championed the causes of the National Rifle Association, sided with the American Conservative Union 86 percent of the time and backed President Bush on the war with Iraq, tax cuts and most everything else. But such numbers do not necessarily measure a politician’s priorities.
In confidential surveys sent out by the Senate Republican leadership, Mr. Thompson recommended giving priority to issues like Congressional term limits and overhauling welfare, entitlement programs and the tax code. But he passed over divisive social issues like late-term abortion, cloning, physician-assisted suicide and affirmative action.
Thompson is a complicated figure and that may be exactly the reason why conservative Republicans aren’t supporting him as passionate as some expected. He’s a conservative, but he’s simply not passionate about the issues that matter most to social conservatives. He cares about other issues. And, when Thompson doesn’t care about an issue, it’s unlikely that he’ll spend much time and attention to it.
Amazing. This effort is fully transparent. Whether it be from the left or the right, such attack tactics fall flat. I prefer reading the moronic personal attacks myself. They at least offer a chuckle of humor.
Fred is not the guy. I don’t know who is, but its not Fred. He is not passionate about anything. However if he wins the Nomination I will vote for him. I just won’t be happy about it or expect anything to change when he is in.
Another atricle by the Clinton Chinese Mafia war room
Pray for W and Our Troops
Michael van der Galiën...
And who is that???
Never heard of him...
Mitt Romney is my guy for now. He has an impressive organization in place. He knows how to raise money. And most important, he has the “ideal family”.
Mitt Romney is my guy for now. He has an impressive organization in place. He knows how to raise money. And most important, he has the “ideal family”.
Neither
There’s no reason to begin early and debate with 10 or 12 candidates. Fred’s the guy.
I liked Mitt after the first 2 debates, however his answer on the Iraq war sounded like he just wanted to get it out of the way so he could have his own issues happening. He did not seem to support the mission, just wanted it over with. Me too, but not till we win.
I can read between the lines of these sly, slithery hit pieces: FEAR. The Clintonistic socalist media don’t sleep well because they know, deep down, Fred will be our next President and they cannot stop it even with Soro’s BILLIONS pushing from every angle.
His "organization" has spent most of his campaign funds with little to show for it. He's going to dip into his personal funds now.
You’ve been here so long, yet I’ve never seen your passion displayed. ;^) Look, no doubt, this is a weak field of GOP choices. We’ve got three guys to choose from. Four if you count McCain. If you throw out the liberal Rooty and the centrist Romney, whats left is one conservative named Fred. Not a perfect conservative mind you, but a conservative nonetheless. If you believe in conservatism, you’ll easily see that Fred has the best chance of beating both the liberal Rooty and the liberal Hillary. Electing either liberal is out of the question.
Fred has a life apart from politics, and his reluctance to fully immerse himself in the details of this lunacy is understandable. While I would rather give my money to Duncan Hunter, it will now go to Fred. He is a conservative with enough celebrity to out compete the liberal, political celebrities on both sides.
holding nose.....looking for full body armor....
I suppose I will not need it? the full body armor.....
I do not know....of course I prefer what my tag-line says
so even with full body armor, my oh my oh my.....
but I vote for a little more than warm....Fred may be
crispy critter and Mr. Hunter may be....still less than warm, but the work has to continue. And America must be saved from the democrats.
For no America and there's no party.....
or culture, or rights, or caring, nor WINNING.
Fred....you have a thumbs up.....I am still listening
but uh oh....I typed.....excuse me.... I'll read more.... but I doubt I will not be able to find my way to Post.....woe is me!
Go Go Go Hunter......
The prior was to offset any known knowledge between the Post and the Poster.
I will Bet that's not possible........
So...... Let's Win One For the Gipper!
Marvelously incoherent!
Thanks....I am working on my style....I stink......
Perhaps if you think “Iambic Pentameter” as you read...;’}
No ones trying to ram Fred down your throat, chum. Far from it. But a big reason for FR`s existence is to advance conservatism over liberalism and to promote conservative candidates over non conservative candidates. In this case there is one viable conservative candidate who respects both the Constitution and the Framers original intent behind Federalism. That would be Fred Thompson. Lets not forget, the likability factor runs deep with voters. Fred`s a likable individual. The final choice is yours.
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.