Without a campaign, Fred Thompson gains support

I agree in that I am “OK” with him- I just don’t get the mania around FR with him.

I realize that some folks post things like this when the really are trying to throw some water on our enthusiasm, but if you really are interested in knowing why some of us are excited about Fred, below is part of the explanation.

The first part of this post was written by Freeper Sturm Ruger and reposted with permission.

My own analysis of why Fred is so electable follows just below that.

Here’s just a partial list of what we know about Fred Thompson so far:

From Fred Dalton Thompson’s voting record, we know that he consistently voted for gun owners (the NRA called him a “staunch supporter of the Second Amendment”), against abortion, for business, against higher taxes, for a balanced budget, for a strong defense, for ANWR drilling, for capping foreign aid, for free trade, for private property rights, for personal retirement accounts, for the Iraq War Resolution and for welfare reform.

From his interest group ratings, we know that FDT earned a perfect zero from National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action, a perfect 100% from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only 11% from the ACLU, 86% from the American Conservative Union, 86% from the Center for Security Policy, a perfect zero from the American Federation of Teachers, 6% from the National Education Association, 90% from the League of Private Property Voters, 97% from the National Tax Limitation committee, 88% from the National Taxpayers Union and a perfect zero from the liberal ADA. In a 1995 analysis, Project Vote Smart listed Thompson as having supported Contract With America items 100% of the time.

We know that among FDT’s Senate accomplishments were his election as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1997, making him among the most junior senators in history to serve as Chairman of a major Senate Committee. He served as Chairman until June of 2001.

We know that the Governmental Affairs Committee is charged with overseeing the management of the federal government. We kow that during his Chairmanship, Sen. Thompson’s committee actively pursued an agenda aimed at producing a smaller, more efficient, and more accountable government. Of his efforts, the Kingsport Times-News wrote, “Sen. Thompson is to be applauded for keeping a watchful eye over Washington fiscal matters. There should be more like him.”

We know that Sen. Thompson held hearings on topics such as improving the federal regulatory process; reforming the IRS; exploring ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; and a number of national security issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. Thompson also investigated and successfully enacted solutions to information management problems such as the security of the federal government’s and the military’s computer systems.

We know that Thompson was also a member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and international trade. From this position, he focused on reducing taxes, reforming the tax code to make it simpler and fairer, and restoring the Social Security and Medicare programs to long-term solvency.

We know that while he was a strong supporter of free trade, Sen. Thompson advocated a balanced approach to trade and national security. He pushed for an export control policy that protects our country’s national security without unnecessarily burdening American industry with bureaucratic red tape. He also proposed legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China and other countries and to strengthen the United States’ response to such activities.

We know that FDT served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.

We know that even the liberal Washington Monthly, in a 1999 hit piece on Thompson, had to begrudgingly admit that as a Senator, Thompson worked hard to keep his campaign promises. We know that Democratic strategist Bob Beckel admitted, in a discussion on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program, that Fred Thompson for president would be the Dems’ “worst nightmare” because of his communications skills and ability to appeal to swing voters. We know that many backers of Fred’s GOP opponents such as yourself attack him for no other reason than he poses a major threat to their candidates even before he officially gets in the race.

We know that Thompson was the guy that GWB picked to get John Roberts confirmed in the senate. We know that he has an outstanding record of rooting out corruption both in Tennessee, where he brought down a corrupt governor, and in Washington, where he was part of the Republican council for Watergate.

We know that Thompson isn’t perfect. We are aware of his stances on immigration (he wasn’t a hawk on it) and McCain? Feingold (he supported it) in the 1990s. But we also know that those votes were a full decade ago, and since then FDT has taken a much tougher stance on securing our borders before all else, and he has admitted that McCain Feingold was campaign finance reform gone bad.

We know that Mitt Romney had a change of heart and mind on gays, guns and abortion, so we believe that FDT should at least be given some consideration for admitting that both he and Ronald Reagan were wrong on immigration, and the reforms he hoped McCain-Feingold would produce didn’t turn out to be “reforms” at all. We know that Fred is a stand-up guy, and he will answer questions on any issues honestly and in a straitforward manner when he gets into the race.

We know that Fred Thompson is media-savvy, has a commanding presence, enjoys superb name recognition (thanks to his Law & Order and movie roles and his hard-hitting commentary for ABC Radio) and left the Senate with a solid conservative voting record. We know that Fred is the first to admit that there was and will ever be only one Ronald Reagan, and Fred is one of Reagan’s smartest students and most consistent disciples. We know that like Reagan, Thompson is that rare sort of conservative who can sell conservative ideas to moderates and independents. And we know that, again like Reagan, Thompson may be the only potential candidate who can unite the factions of the Republican Party right now.

Oh, and we know that Ronald Reagan was an actor/entertainer and a radio commentator, too.

That’s just a few of the things we know about Fred. But it was and is compelling enough to ignite and maintain the momentum of a grassroots movement to draft Fred to run for President of the United States. And we know that we won’t rest until Fred has taken the oath of office.

source: FredThompsonFAQ.com

Now, my analysis on the electability of Fred Thompson:

So why is this guy so electable? What is it that we think separates him from the pack?

In my own personal analysis, it is going to take the right candidate to win the general election in 2008. The right candidate has the following qualifications:

1) He is not divisive. Bush is divisive and there are a lot of people who would gladly vote Republican that just plain HATE GWB.

2) He can excite the base. No candidate since Reagan has excited the base. Conservatives have voted against the democrat since 1988. Giving them someone to vote FOR would be a welcome change.

When the Republican base is excited about something, they talk about it. When they talk, they make sense and fencesitters listen to sense. That goes a long way to bringing them on board. That's how we lost the 2006 election. It wasn't over Iraq. It was because we were all so disillusioned with the Republicans that we couldn't even give anyone a good reason why they were better. All we could say was 'Speaker Pelosi'. We all know how that turned out. The same thing will happen if all we say is 'President Hillary'.

3) He can communicate. Not only just communicate, but communicate in a straightforward manner, making the issues of the day simple and understandable to the average voter. This is something that has been sorely lacking in the White House for the past 6 years. Communication isn't only about being able to deliver a great speech. Communication is about having a command of the issues, not being afraid to say what you mean, and not having to triangulate every issue to death. Good communication comes from people knowing that you are grounded in your knowledge and principles and have the ability to express them without reservation.

So, how on earth can Fred be that candidate that is both not divisive AND exciting to the base? Well, if you look closely at Fred, you'll see he fits the bill perfectly. When he speaks, it's not about right and left. It's about common sense. Most conservatism is just that: common sense.

Taking the above as a given, let's see how the other candidates measure up:

1) Rudy Giuliani

Divisiveness -- BIGTIME. But not among the electorate at large. He's more divisive among Republicans and conservatives. This isn't only to do with abortion and gay rights issues, as many would have it painted. Looking into Rudy's record shows a guy that has been liberal on most things and rabidly so. He's gone against the party on so many things in the past, that it is not unreasonable to assume that promises made to conservatives will be broken once he is in office. For these reasons (and many more), Rudy is mistrusted by a large part of the conservative base. They don't hate him. They just don't trust him.

Excitability -- Very little, due to the divisiveness problem. Also, he's shown a tin ear when it comes to issues that might make people come over to him and actually hold their nose on other things and support him. Most of the support that Rudy has comes from people convinced that we need to basically run a Dem to beat a Dem. People that are literally so afraid of Hillary that they can't see that they'd be completely giving in on the entire Republican party platform to win one single election. That's winning a battle and losing a war. A lot of us see it that way and especially after 8 years of Bush ruining the party, we can't imagine 4-8 years of Rudy continuing to pound nails in the coffin of the conservative movement.

Communication -- Here, Rudy is okay. He can give a good speech. He's quick on his feet sometimes. Not all the time, but sometimes. But he's always triangulating. He's always moderating his language so that what he is saying means nothing. Check out his statement on the day that the immigration bill was announced. What a bunch of gobbledygook. It meant nothing. Again, it is in this area that he shows a tin ear to what conservatives really want. Whenever he seems to have a chance to bring us to his side, he flounders. Something tells me that's because he doesn't want us on his side and there's a reason for that.

2) Mitt Romney

Divisiveness -- Not much. But there isn't much really to this guy to be upsetting anyone except conservatives that look at his past record of liberalism in Mass. He says the right things now though. Mitt's not divisive. He's just blah.

Excitability -- Next to none. I wish I could understand what Mitt's rabid supporters see in him that makes them so sure he's the guy. Most people I know, both here on FR and in the real world, say they COULD vote for Mitt, but aren't really motivated about it. He's just blah.

Communication -- Gives a great speech, no doubt about that. But one gets the feeling that the words are empty. Everything is so rehearsed and so polished. So triangulated and designed for certain affects at a certain time. He's like RoboCandidate.

3) John McCain

Is finished, so let's not bother...fingers need a rest.

4) Newt Gingrich

Divisiveness -- WHOA!!! THis dude is the Gingrich that stole Christmas? Need I say more?

Excitability -- Not seeing any. We all like the guy, but I haven't heard one person tell me that they're excited about him running for president.

Communication -- Excellent. One of the best, both at speeches, and at meaning what he says. He definitely fits the communication bill. If only it wasn't for all that pesky other stuff...

5) Fred Dalton Thompson

So, how do I know that Fred Thompson is the right candidate? It isn't because I just love the guy and want to see him win. It's because he logically fits the bill in every way.

If I may illustrate:

To illustrate how divisive Fred Thompson is, we'll need to hold our noses and visit a nasty site called demorcrats.org. Put your hip boots on prior to entry:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/the_fred_thomps.php

Check the comments there. Keep in mind that this is a hit piece on Fred Thompson on a Democrat website. Check the moonbat response and see how many of them agree with Fred. That is an example of the crossover appeal of Fred Thompson as a candidate. There are other examples, even threads at DU that go to show that they just can't hate this guy no matter how hard they try. Now, if the hardcore nutroots have this kind of feeling about the guy, think about what kind of affect he'll have on the average Dem.

I don't think we need to illustrate how excited the base is, since it is evident on this site. But if you think it's limited to this site, you're mistaken. I'm having difficulty finding a link to it, but Rush Limbaugh gave a performance about a month ago. He said "I want to test something." He then, said the words "Fred Thompson" and stepped away from the mic. The crowd litereally erupted into a screaming roar at the very mention of his name. The base loves this guy.

I did find a link, however of a great explanation of Fred's popularity from a blogger named Josh Allem:

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

That brings us to communication.

Here is an excellent example of Fred at his very best. This particular clip comes from BEFORE 9/11. It shows an example, not only of a guy with fantastic communications skills, but of a guy who definitely 'gets it'. Even when 'getting it' wasn't all that popular.

http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/PlayVideo.cfm?speakerid=3996&contentid=484&type=mov&res=high

Here's a bit from his speech in Connecticut last week that deals with immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H3zhZu0S5w

Here's the entire speech in CT:

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-in-ct-the-full-video.html

Here's the Thompson interview that Josh Allem is talking about in his monalogue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snw7_6mJf5c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I

Here is Fred's speech at the Lincon Club last month, which some folks, (mostly Robert Novak) were not very impressed with. I enjoyed the speech. Admittedly, it wasn't Fred's best speech ever, but I still thought it was quite good. This is in 4 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJ5dy_MTxY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6th2VJDWO0Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8rwX_mzvQQ

Fred Thompson also has another quality that none of the other candidates have. He has an ability to manipulate the media and ideas that involve using the internet in new ways during the course of his campaign. A little taste of this can be had by looking into the now famous sparring that Fred had with Michael Moore several weeks ago.

That incident started with This idiotic challenge from Michael Moore.

This was Fred's response:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=208

I hope this clears up why some of us support Fred and where our thinking is on why Fred is the guy that can not only win, but just maybe turn conventional wisdom on it's ear.

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.