The Papa Bear Factor (Fred Thompson Alert!)

For decades, conservatives struggled to take over the Republican Party. They remember Reagan as the man who led them to power. They're worried that the current front-runners for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination may challenge the conservative ascendancy.

Mitt Romney? "A little convenient in the switching of his positions," Bennett said. John McCain? "A little too mavericky" in Bennett's view. Rudy Giuliani? "He's out there on social and domestic issues in a way that a lot of the [conservative] base may be willing to accept but isn't happy with."

And Thompson? "Fred Thompson, in the imagination, feels like the bowl of porridge that is just right," Bennett said. "But the tasting is yet to occur."

... "I don't think the American people are going to turn the keys to this country over to a party who invest their political capital in defeat," Thompson said.

One way to get conservative juices flowing is to take on filmmaker Michael Moore... "You know, the next time you're down in Cuba visiting your buddy Castro, you might ask him about another documentary filmmaker," Thompson said in a Web video addressed to Moore. "His name is Nicolas Guillen. He did something Castro didn't like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. Mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about."

What clinches the sale for many conservatives is that Thompson looks like a winner. "This is the guy we need to beat the ultimate Democratic nominee," South Carolina state Sen. John Hawkins said. "And if we're ever going to be able to beat them, the person to do it is going to be Fred Thompson." At a time when Americans are concerned about physical security, Thompson has been described as "the ultimate Papa Bear."

No need to excerpt.

Atlantic Unbound | June 12, 2007
Political Pulse | by William Schneider

The Papa Bear Factor

Even though he’s a former senator, Fred Thompson is positioned to run against Washington.

What would Fred Thompson bring to the Republican race? As a former senator, he’s well connected. As an actor, he’s well known. “He is well known on a soft level,” says Republican strategist David Winston. “One of the challenges he faces is to flesh out the details.”

Some Republicans see Thompson as the answer to their prayers: another Ronald Reagan—meaning, a conservative who’s also a winner. Thompson recently asked a conservative audience at the Lincoln Club in California, “You ever wonder why, when our problems seem to be getting larger, so many of our politicians seem to be getting smaller?”

Thompson is not small. He’s 6 feet, 6 inches tall and seems big in other ways, too. “Stature,” conservative commentator Bill Bennett recently told CNN. “Everyone knows who he is. He’s famous. He has a Reaganite quality, including the fact that he’s a movie star. He has a tremendous voice and presence.”

For decades, conservatives struggled to take over the Republican Party. They remember Reagan as the man who led them to power. They’re worried that the current front-runners for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination may challenge the conservative ascendancy.

Mitt Romney? “A little convenient in the switching of his positions,” Bennett said. John McCain? “A little too mavericky” in Bennett’s view. Rudy Giuliani? “He’s out there on social and domestic issues in a way that a lot of the [conservative] base may be willing to accept but isn’t happy with.”

And Thompson? “Fred Thompson, in the imagination, feels like the bowl of porridge that is just right,” Bennett said. “But the tasting is yet to occur.”

Is Thompson a reliable conservative? He supported campaign finance reform, which conservatives hate. And an evangelical leader once complained that Thompson didn’t talk enough about his faith.

But on Iraq, Thompson’s conservatism seems staunch. “I don’t think the American people are going to turn the keys to this country over to a party who invest their political capital in defeat,” Thompson said.

One way to get conservative juices flowing is to take on filmmaker Michael Moore, as Thompson did recently. “You know, the next time you’re down in Cuba visiting your buddy Castro, you might ask him about another documentary filmmaker,” Thompson said in a Web video addressed to Moore. “His name is Nicolas Guillen. He did something Castro didn’t like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. Mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about.”

What clinches the sale for many conservatives is that Thompson looks like a winner. “This is the guy we need to beat the ultimate Democratic nominee,” South Carolina state Sen. John Hawkins said. “And if we’re ever going to be able to beat them, the person to do it is going to be Fred Thompson.” At a time when Americans are concerned about physical security, Thompson has been described as “the ultimate Papa Bear.”

Reagan was anti-Washington. He used to talk about “puzzle palaces on the Potomac.” Running against Washington is Thompson’s specialty. “You wouldn’t think we have to make the lower-tax case again,” he told the Lincoln Club, “but you have to make it every day in Washington, D.C.”

Thompson has been a senator and a Washington lawyer and lobbyist going all the way back to Watergate, when he served as chief Republican counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee. But he campaigns as a Washington outsider. When he first ran for the Senate in 1994, Thompson wore a flannel shirt and drove a pickup truck all over Tennessee, calling for term limits. He plays the role of outsider. To prove it, he got out: Thompson left the Senate in 2002, at the end of his first full term. Good timing, because that’s when the Bush administration started to get into trouble.

Now, once again, Thompson is positioned to run against Washington. “I think the biggest problem that we have today is the disconnect between Washington, D.C., and the people of the United States,” Thompson told an audience in Connecticut.

At a time when voters have lost confidence in the Bush administration and are desperate for change, an anti-Washington candidate could be very interesting, especially if he’s a Republican.

At a time when voters have lost confidence in the Bush administration and are desperate for change, an anti-Washington candidate could be very interesting, especially if he’s a Republican.

The candidate, if any, that successfully does this will win in '08. People hate both parties right now. That's what 2006 was about. It's become worse since then. I said this when it looked pretty clear he'd run. The fact he left Washington on his own accord is his strongest selling point.

To counter, do not be surprised if Gore enters. He can play the role too. Not as successfully, since he didn't leave of his own choosing. But he did leave Washington and re-invent himself as a front runner in the Liberal culture.

I actually kind of hope he does. It would be the ultimate culture clash election. I'd rather an open and honest no holds bar clash over the future of this country, then prevarication Hillary brings to the table. I think fred would ultimately win out, as the conservative culture holds more appeal to the majority then the other. but either way we'd know where we stood.

I beat him to the porridge analogy, in a comment on how the extreme right (or the anti-Freds trying to drive a wedge) are touting his areas of arguable moderation, while the left is doing the same, in reverse. (In fact, it all illustrates his strength as a candidate, that such a solidly conservative can be appealing as something other than a bomb-thrower.)

To: IrishMike

Goldilocks porridge?

Some critics say it’s too hot. Others say it’s too cold.

Insiders worry that this may mean Goldilocks goes hungry.

Film at 11.

23 posted on 06/14/2007 9:28:59 AM PDT by Beelzebubba (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney (...and another “Constitution-bot”))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850007/posts?page=23#23

Well, duh! When I see a copyright notice on an article, I excerpt it. It’s not like clicking on a link to read the full story is a physical or mental struggle or anything.

More importantly, when you reprint a copyrighted article on FR, you are not doing Jim or the FReeper community any favors:

* These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.

* Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.

* Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don’t grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.

* The “fair use” exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That’s vital so that copyright law doesn’t block your freedom to express your own works — only the ability to appropriate other people’s. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn’t find time to write your own story, or didn’t want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren’t.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work — in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford’s 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words — why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn’t damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn’t an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case...

- Brad Templeton, “10 Big Myths about copyright explained”

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

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.