Posted on 05/07/2007 1:41:41 AM PDT by Doofer
As the collection of announced presidential candidates participate in a campaign-athon that is occasionally so stomach turning that it should be sponsored by Pepto Bismol, actor and former Senator Fred Thompson waits it out – smartly. Should he run, Fred's already earned my vote, and I'll tell you why.
First of all, I have to admit, I'm tired and borderline nauseated by this particular race for the Oval Office that seemingly started during Bush's first term – and I mean George H.W. Bush. Normally I enjoy campaign season, as it's terrific fodder for those of us who like a good Coney Island Circus Sideshow disguised as a Gilligan's Island Circus Sideshow. But, alas, it is possible to have too much fun.
I believe this race for the presidency has finally crossed the line where the campaign is longer than the term in the office that is being sought. Even the producers of Super Bowl pregame shows are calling it overkill.
Fred Thompson, who may well join the fray, deserves our serious attention, at the very least as having the good manners to not want to spend any more time than absolutely necessary exposing us to another political campaign. Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but it's also a trait that tends to be found among the honest, as they don't need all the extra time to keep changing their position.
The potential for a Fred Thompson candidacy is like a tsunami that hasn't reached shore yet. There has been a bit of seismic activity, generating an enormous wall of energy that isn't yet detectable from the surface, but it's there.
Read Thompson's speech to the Lincoln Club annual dinner and tell me he wouldn't excite the Republican base while reeling in many others. Reagan comparisons are overused and often wrongly applied, but in this case the comparisons are very valid.
Here is a brief example from Thompson's speech:
Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.
Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.
To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.
''Common sense arithmetic,'' in a world where all too often 2 + 2 = 1,637, is as refreshing as the first time you open your windows in the springtime. Reagan gave us that feeling, and the potential for a ''morning in America II'' is very real in Thompson.
Thompson believes in low taxes, secure borders, term limits, states rights and, most importantly, in the American people. True, plenty of folks say these things, but as near as I can tell, Fred Thompson is one of the few people with a reasonable chance of winning who isn't merely lip syncing to Reagan's music, but actually singing his own tune.
Also, Fred Thompson has something I prefer in a candidate: a federal record – and I'm talking political and not legal. Candidates can lie, but their voting records can't.
Who will support Fred Thompson? Anybody who enjoys a dose of common sense not wrapped in doublespeak. I believe most Americans will choose a truthful person they might disagree with on a few issues, over a liar who agrees with them on everything time after time. Is that naïve optimism? If it is, it's all the more reason we could use a guy like Fred Thompson to help bring us back around.
For now, the phenomena that could turn into the Fred Thompson candidacy is rumbling along, but still far offshore – a barely detectable ripple on the surface. I believe that if it reaches land, the rest of the candidates will be washed away by a tidal wave named Fred.
A tsunami? Aw, I think maybe a soft after shower. The tsunami is already running.
“We have better qualified candidates.”
Who?
Bingo! I have Republican friends talking the same way!
“From what I read, he wasn’t interested in 2000 because he was more focused on his work load in the Senate and doing the job Tenn called him to do. I respect that”
Yah, but just think how much better off we’d be right now if the Republican party had taken a pass on GW.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
“It’s a shame he wasn’t interested in 2000.”
Damn. Don’t I wish?
Lincoln was a one term congressman and a failed candidate for the senate. He had no military or executive experience, and during the Mexican War had been an opponent of the campaign. Yet...
Sign me up, Jellybean!
“Our republican governor is returning the franchise to about a million convicted felons. Guess what that will do to the dem-rep balance in Florida.”
Not much, I imagine. If they were civic-minded enough to vote, they probably wouldn’t be felons in the first place.
BillF...
The first paragraphs about Patents made me think of you and so...PING!
Sturm Ruger...
You have collected more information than I can imagine...thanks for the reading time.
mclame was the alternative. Do you honestly believe he'd have done a better job than W? Do you honestly believe algore wouldn't have prevailed in 2000 had mclame been the candidate?
I shudder to think that either of those two could have been CIC.
Thank you, LORD, for President Bush. He isn't perfect, but he's still the best we could have in the Oval Office.
“Thank you, LORD, for President Bush. He isn’t perfect, but he’s still the best we could have in the Oval Office.”
Nah. I think we’d have been better had Thompson been interested in 2000 and the Republican party had beaten GW with a stick.
“Thank you, LORD, for President Bush.”
Don’t you think it’s a little unfair to Our Lord to assign him responsibility for GW becoming President?
“Tsunami”? I saw Fred on Hannity’s show and he looked very frail. I no longer think he can beat Romney.
“Thank you, LORD, for President Bush.”
You don’t believe God gave the voters free will?
I thought that’s how Christians explain evil — God isn’t responsible because he gave us free will?
Maybe it would be best not to pray to Our Lord about elections or thank him for the result, lest Our Lord smite us for doubting that he has graced us with the freedom to choose evil over good.
What do you think? Sound like a plan?
He does set our leaders in place, however, according to Scripture.
We have free will. I certainly didn't mean to imply anything regarding a robotic vote.
Thompson wasn't interested in 2000. Deal with it.
I was a Keyes supporter in '96 and well as 2000. I don't play "if only" games.
“He does set our leaders in place, however, according to Scripture.”
Were leaders elected back then?
Maybe Scripture is a bit out of date on that point.
Or should we just deny God gave us free will?
Tough call. What do you think?
Thompson has the potential to reach out to the unwashed masses without sacrificing his conservatism, something that Bush has failed to do. We really need a Republican who can break conservatism down for the sheeple to understand, without all this crap about "bipartisanship."
I'm very excited about a Thompson candidancy, and if I was one of the current contenders, I'd withdraw from the race and throw my support behind Fred so the GOP can be unified.
We are talking about electing a president, and that doesn’t seem to be your agenda. Stuff your feelings and use your head as if you were a hiring manager.
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.