Why Fred Thompson?

Townhall.com ^ | 31 May 2007 | Robert D. Novak

[Aussie Dasher]

WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson sat at the end of a long table in The Monocle restaurant on Capitol Hill Tuesday night for dinner with some 20 fellow conservatives, mostly journalists. He sent two signals. First, he sounded like a man who has decided to run for president. Second, his candidacy will be something different from other Republicans, in both substance and style.

This was one of the irregular sessions of the Saturday Evening Club, which is not a club and never meets on Saturday. The name was purloined from H.L. Mencken's Baltimore discussion club by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. Tyrrell arranges and presides over these events, always featuring a guest newsmaker -- usually a Republican presidential hopeful over the past two years. Former Sen. Thompson was the most intriguing of them because he has become a leading prospect for president even though he has not announced his candidacy and has no real campaign.

Thompson's performance Tuesday night, with his remarks off the record, helped show why many Republican insiders are ready to support him. Thompson is winning straw polls at Republican conferences and running well in polls mainly because of dissatisfaction, for varying reasons, with the three leading GOP candidates -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. But Thompson at the dinner table confirmed the widespread perception inside the party of his potential to be an extraordinary candidate.

Thompson disappointed in his first speech as a prospective candidate, addressing the Lincoln Club of Orange County, Calif., on May 4. Discarding a speech he had written himself, Thompson ad-libbed from handwritten notes, a performance that placed him in the usual run of Republican after-dinner speakers. This was not the second coming of Reagan that Californians envisioned.

[Aussie Dasher]

If Fred wants it, it's time he told us.

[Spktyr]

He just did.

[kinoxi]

I would like to see him run.

[Aussie Dasher]

Is it official?

[FreePoster]

I like him, but I've already found my candidate without any doubt. Conservatives will need to line up behind a single candidate to win this primary. I'm really looking for substance over style more than ever. You can vote for Hunter and know that you are getting the real thing.

[CheyennePress]

No, it isn’t. He’s supposed to announce on July 4.

[Spktyr]

Reuters seems to think so.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842311/posts

[Spktyr]

I would also like to have Hunter in the Oval Office, but it’s not a practical reality - this time around.

Here are the objections to Hunter. Note that they are not at all doctrinal, but tactical and strategic.

1. *Zero* mainstream face or name recognition. Much money will have to be spent to get Hunter’s face and name on a par with Hillary’s! in terms of public recognition. This is money that cannot be used to promote Hunter’s reputation or attack Hillary! (or Obama).
2. Hunter is an average, not an exceptional speaker. An exceptional speaker is what is really called for to defeat the emotional appeal of the left. Hunter would either have to have his debates spun, learn to be a much better speaker, or work off a LOT of cue cards.
3. Hunter does *not* seem to have a very good grasp of how the media, old and new, works. He is not very good at getting the media’s attention or using it to his advantage. He would have to rely solely on campaign advisors - and we all know just how disastrous that can be. (Dole ‘96 comes to mind....)

I think if you take a look, you’ll find that Fred Thompson has 95%+ of the same positions as Hunter. He’s a better communicator and far more adept at media manipulation. He also relates to the average Joe better, and the average Joe knows him from TV and movies.

Personally, I think the best thing that could happed would be a Thompson/Hunter ticket for the next 8, then a Hunter/whoever ticket for the following 8. Or even Thompson/Hunter for four years, then Hunter/whoever for the following four. Remember, we have to have some thought beyond just this election, too.

[FreePoster]

Try http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840745/posts. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I don't think he needs to work off cue cards.

Like I said, I like Fred Thompson too. He appears to be pretty much conservative. And he's got that awesome voice and style. But Hunter is the guy we need.

[johnny7]

I think if you take a look, you’ll find that Fred Thompson has 95%+ of the same positions as Hunter.

I want to hear what he's going to do about illegals... and their organized, network of benefactors before I quit backing Hunter.

[rob777]

“Here are the objections to Hunter. Note that they are not at all doctrinal, but tactical and strategic.”

My biggest objection to Hunter is his record on government spending.

[TomGuy]

his candidacy will be something different from other Republicans, in both substance and style.

I'm still waiting to hear some substance from Thompson. He talks around the issues, but so far, he hasn't given much substance of how he would handle some of the hot issues.

He seems to be a moderate on most issues, has voted for and against various immigration related bills, chaired the committee that wrote McCain's CFR, supported McCain in 2000. Some articles have said Thompson is as much of a globalist as the current WH occupant.

Besides playing a president on TV, he was a senator. Senators don't typically make very good presidential contenders.

Until Thompson starts giving more substance in his speeches, he reminds me of John 'I have a plan' Kerry. Kerry had a plan-for-every-occasion, but he never gave any details of the substance of any of those plans. When Thompson starts giving specifics, then we will have a better idea of who and what he is. Until then, he is an actor who seems to do only so-so with his politicial speech lines.

[George W. Bush]

But Hunter is the guy we need.

Hunter's like Gilmore and Tommy Thompson. Good solid ideas and resume, no charisma. Also, no serious funding or national organization. In this sense, Tancredo, Ron Paul and the others are also very very long shots.

Politics is a popularity contest as well as standing for policy choices.

After one more debate with the full field, I would guess that the media is going to narrow the debates and most coverage to just four candidates: McStain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson. There's a chance that one of the other second tier could stay in the debates if they are strong enough in IA or NH. Paradoxically, the only second-tier guy with much of a chance of doing that would be Ron Paul in NH (recall that Buchanan won NH in 1992 so it's not quite impossible).

I think that to stop the leftwing mayor, we'll have to pick one of the others. McStain will probably fade because the base hates him so much and he's a retread from 2000 and reminds us all of Bob Dole way too much. So it probably comes down to choosing between Fred and Mitt to be certain that the leftwing mayor doesn't slip between them.

I like Hunter and the rest of the GOP field. But I don't want to let the leftwing mayor, the most unacceptable candidate, slip between 10 other far more conservative candidates and grab the nomination.

[AmericaUnited]

You can vote for Hunter and know that you are getting the real thing.

You can also know with 99.9999% certainty that he stands NO CHANCE of winning the general election. Stop being delusional.

[stopem]

What record on Govt spending? (Hunter)
Proof please.

That’s the problem with Thompsohn, he is entering as a spoiler, he has no real record, he is a TV Star amd ex-Senator who’s “record” as such says he is a moderate at best, stated he was pro-choice, spoke against this President’s policies, I could go on but don’t have the time right now.

[stopem]

But you can gusrantee 99.9999% that Thompson can get elected and be the greatest President ever?

Now who’s dilusional?

[stopem]

gusrantee = guarantee

[johnny7]

Don’t lump Hunter with the rest of the dwarfs...

[AmericaUnited]

But you can gusrantee 99.9999% that Thompson can get elected and be the greatest President ever? Now who’s dilusional?

What a stupid statement.

[mo]

For me, this is why.....

http://joshallem.blogspot.com/2007/04/whats-so-special-about-fred.html