Some view Thompson as next 'Great Communicator'

Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 8/19/7 | Michael Collins

[SmithL]

Will Reagan similarities help this actor-turned-politician?

WASHINGTON — He’s an actor-turned-politician in the mode of Ronald Reagan, someone who’s at ease in front of a camera or a crowd, a man who can charm an audience with a folksy tale or a clever turn of phrase.

But is Fred Thompson truly Reaganesque?

Reagan was, after all, the Great Communicator, a leader so skilled at connecting with his subjects that he has become the standard by which all would-be presidents are judged.

Thompson’s admirers, elated over his expected decision to seek the Republican nomination for president, already are hailing his candidacy as the second coming of Reagan.

The former Tennessee senator, an ex-prosecutor who plays a stern district attorney on the television crime drama “Law and Order,” is expected to officially enter the race sometime next month.

Like Reagan, Thompson believes in smaller government and fiscal conservatism.

But let’s put aside politics for a minute and focus on the other trait he shares with the last actor who was elected president — an innate ability to communicate, to tell a story in a way that captures the public’s attention.

Both men come across as strong, authoritative figures on stage and screen. Their speaking voices are fluent and resonant, though vastly different. Reagan’s was smooth, mellow, grandfatherly. Thompson’s is deep, gruff, sometimes gravelly. Both men were blessed with the gift of gab and a flair for spinning a good yarn.

But is Thompson Reagan’s equal as a communicator?

Thompson does have the Reagan touch, said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

“Thompson is at ease with the camera,” Geer said. “Certainly, Reagan was at ease with the camera. Second, at least from what I can see so far, Thompson, when he decides to be critical of somebody or question them, he does it in a way that has less of an edge to it than a lot of current politicians, and I think that is also Reaganesque.’’

In some ways, though, Thompson seems less like “the Gipper” and more like Sheriff Andy Taylor of the old “Andy Griffith Show,” Geer said.

“He has this kind of disarming quality about him, where he tries to use folksy kind of metaphors just like Taylor did,” Geer said. “But at the same time, Taylor was the most wily (man) in that entire city. Thompson is very smart as well, so he has this old country boy kind of routine that I think serves him pretty well.”

Clark Judge, who worked as a speechwriter for Reagan in the White House, also sees a little of Reagan in Thompson.

“Thompson has a very solid, reassuring presence at a podium and before a camera,” Judge said. “He comes across as someone you trust a lot. Look at him on some of his TV speeches, responses to State of the Union, that sort of thing. He’s very much someone who’s talking to you.”

One of Reagan’s greatest attributes, at least as an orator, was his ability to take written text and give it additional meaning, Judge said.

“For me, it was very, very different listening to Reagan before I started working for him and then listening to him when he was delivering text that I had actually written,” Judge said. “He would find meaning in the text and bring it out through his delivery.”

Judge said he doesn’t know whether Thompson has that talent because he’s never written for him. But, “Thompson is a very effective communicator, which is one reason he has moved up so fast (in the polls),” Judge said.

Others are less impressed by Thompson’s oratory skills.

“He’s no Reagan,” said John Kares Smith, a professor of communications at State University of New York in Oswego, an expert in presidential and political communication and a devotee of Thompson’s television show.

“Ronald Reagan had an ability and a real underestimated skill of being able to touch very deep-held American myths and beliefs,” Smith said. “When he would talk about the city on the hill, he really could resonate with our puritan past. Fred Thompson, I don’t think he has any of those skills at all.”

Thompson “just doesn’t connect the way Reagan did,” Smith said. “Reagan had maybe three ideas, and everybody knew what they were. He knew people. He had a wonderful sense of humor. Fred Thompson is not known for his humor.”

Reagan also was the eternal optimist and, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, used his speeches to raise people’s spirits, said David E. Johnson, a political consultant in Atlanta who worked on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1988.

“That was Reagan’s whole persona,” Johnson said. “That’s what his greatness was, very much like Jack Kennedy. Thompson, on the other hand, is more a ‘just the facts’ type of person. He doesn’t lift to the oratorical lengths that Reagan or Roosevelt did or even Bill Clinton did.”

As evidence, Johnson cited a speech that Thompson gave to a group of Republicans last May. Some complained that the address, Thompson’s first as a prospective presidential candidate, was downright disappointing.

But whether Thompson can live up to the Reagan legend may be beside the point. He doesn’t have to be a Reagan clone to win the GOP nomination, Judge said.

“The real issue,” Judge said, “is how he compares to the rest of the field.”

[Aruchu]

Wouldn’t he have to actually come out and speak to be the next “Great Communicator”

[the invisib1e hand]

barring something unforseen and epochal, hillary clinton will be the original and true “selected, not elected” president.

[the invisib1e hand]

you are too optimistic! not...

sensibly skeptical. brutally realistic.

There is no one, not one single republican, of presidential mettle with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani, like it or not.

And Hillary's status as Victim of Bill and Strong Woman and veteran De Facto President will trump him easily in the public mind. The others, on either side, are just that: side shows. They are not capable of being the president of this country, imho, and it will be a time of trepidation if any of them by some unfortunate turn of events manages to get elected to the office.

I suppose one thing that could do it is apathy. Apathy somewhere could get one of these side show politicians in. That would be sad indeed, no matter what party he claimed to be affiliated with, because this country is too much to be handled by an amateur. He'll be eaten alive and run too high a risk of making really dumb decisions out of ignorance of the true political and leadership tradition of the US, and the discretion required to steer this ship in international waters that are filled with sharks and landmines.

[GBA]

As much as I want to disagree with you about the pics of FDT from the fair and a potential voter's reaction, I can't. Reagan was a similar age, but really didn't look it...maybe it's the hair?

I've wondered for a long time if Abe Lincoln could be elected today. He was an incredible speaker and writer, but not at all attractive in a traditional sense. If we, as a society, are shallow enough to elect Clinton twice, I don't think we can elect FDT once, but it's way too early to know for sure.

[Inspectorette]

I've noticed that too - Fred looked at his best about 10-15 years ago, but he has not aged well. He's only five years older than Mitt, but looks like he could be Mitt's father.

I don't think it helped any that he rode around the Iowa fair in a golf cart either. Makes one worry about his health.

Regardless, my vote will be to whoever is the Republican nominee. Anybody But Hillary:-(

[codercpc]

My money, my vote, my activism will be 100% behind FT if he gets the nomination, but let's face it, if he does his appearance (as of last week at the Iowa State Fair) does him no good.

GBA is correct that Abe Lincoln probably could not be elected today, and although that is a sad fact, it does us no good what so ever to pretend that America will change its vanity standards overnight because FT is the nominee. He may beat Hillary, only because of her high negatives, but they are close to the same age, yet look decades apart. We laughed at Al Gore for hiring an image consultant (Naomi something) but at this point FT had better look into hiring more than one.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Thompson’s advantage of RWR is his very quick intelligence. Ronnie was no dunce, but Fred seems to be one VERY smart dude.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I don’t understand the thrill about Fred

---

He’s an electable conservative.

[WOSG]

“with all due respect, if it’s about being a great businessman then there are plenty of folks who can do that....Soros, Buffett, Gates, Murdoch, Jobs ... see my point?”
No, your point is pointless. It’s like saying you cant vote for a Catholic because Ted kennedy is catholic (supposedly). There are liberal successful businessmen and conservative successful businessmen. It’s time we had more conservative successful businessmen in public service. (we need men like Herman Cain in office).

Let us know if any of these other plutocrats you mention follow Romney on saying thing like this:

“”I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century’s conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.”

“Coming from Massachusetts, I saw first hand the liberal future, and it doesn’t work. That’s why I ran against Ted Kennedy. Liberal social programs weren’t solving poverty; they were in fact creating a culture of poverty. I didn’t win, but at least Teddy had to take out a mortgage on his home to beat me.

I was once campaigning in a poor section in Boston when a person came up to me and said: “What are you doing here? This is Kennedy country.” I looked around at the vacant store fronts and boarded up windows and replied: “Yeah, it looks like Kennedy country.””

“As you know, I’m proud to be the first Presidential candidate to sign Grover Norquist’s tax pledge. But I have another pledge I am making to you today. If I am elected President, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. That alone will save $300 billion over 10 years. If Congress sends me a budget that exceeds the cap, I will veto that budget. I don’t care if it’s a Republican or Democrat Congress, I will veto that budget.

And I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as Governor. And, by the way, if Congress doesn’t want to do the cutting itself, then give me the same line item veto I had as governor.

And one more thing, I will personally lead a top to bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending. It’s time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I’ve done that in business, I’ve done that in the Olympics, and I’ve done that in Massachusetts. And boy, I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington.”
http://www.redstate.com/stories/special_events/romneys_speech_conservatives_take_heart

Romney is for the FMA and against gay marriage. Leaving aside his conversion timing on becoming pro-life, he has also acted and been prolife as Governor. So yes, if you find some other billionaire adopting these positions, we need to know and get that person running of US Senate or Governor.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Oh, you mean the kind of “federalism” that pretends unalienable rights are state matters?

---

The kind that declares that hotly disputed rights of the deepest morality are state matters.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Funny, Mitt Romney has accomplished more than any candidate running for President at the moment.

---

Too bad he’s not a solid conservative.

[Seaplaner]

If the nomination goes to someone other than FRed, Hunter, or Tancredo, I sit at home and eat popcorn while watching reruns

Such intransigence is hardly brilliant.

President Hillary will dispatch F.R, Rush, and all "dissent" in short order, and her Marxist appointees to the newly-packed Supremes will separate you from your private property before you can finish your reruns.

[airborne]

I said it yesterday at post # 4, and I'll say it again -

"These types of articles serve no purpose other than to create animosity among FReepers."

Looking back over this thread, I was, sadly, 100% correct.

[EternalVigilance]

The kind that declares that hotly disputed rights of the deepest morality are state matters.

---

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." - The Declaration of Independence

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - The Preamble to the United States Constitution

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - The Fifth Amendment

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The Fourteenth Amendment

"Thou shall not commit murder." - Exodus 20:13

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Thompson does have the Reagan touch, said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

The reason he appeals to middle Ameica is that he is a Jacksonisn.

Prominent Jacksonians: Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson

Excerpted from The Jacksonian Tradition

A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny; though periodically led by intellectually brilliant men—like Andrew Jackson himself—it is neither an ideology nor a self-conscious movement with a clear historical direction or political table of organization. Nevertheless, Jacksonian America has produced—and looks set to continue to produce—one political leader and movement after another, and it is likely to continue to enjoy major influence over both foreign and domestic policy in the United States for the foreseeable future.

[fabian]

wow, Fred Thompson is not presidential and Hillary is basically a shoe in? I think you are way too skeptical...actually your “brutally realistic” is really very judgemental. And I don’t mean the good kind of judgement. Your darkside is talking through your post. Take a look at fhu.com if you would like to become free of that and not go along with the darkside so readily.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You seem bent on opposing the first guy ever to hold real promise to persuade the American people that Roe vs. Wade must be repealed.

[cookcounty]

"Fred Thompson is not known for his humor.”

His Michael Moore/ Castro Cigar/ mental institution bit on youtube had me laughing and knee-slapping.

[TAdams8591]

"I am starting to believe that he does indeed have internal passions driving him, and I don’t think it is in favor of Reagan conservatives."

Really, where's the recent evidence that supports your statement?

AND why does he spend so much time courting them????

Since the legislature in Mass. was 85% democrat, Romney didn't have the opportunity to work with enough Republicans, let alone conservatives, let alone Reagan conservatives, to develop any animosity toward them.

Furthermore, I can't imagine Michael Reagan being attracted to support a candidate who isn't in favor of Reagan conservatives.

If anything Romney's platform is a tribute to Reagan and Reagan conservatives. I particularly like his stand for fiscal responsibility and smaller government, which BTW, President Bush NEVER mentioned on the campaign trail!

[EternalVigilance]

You seem bent on opposing the first guy ever to hold real promise to persuade the American people that Roe vs. Wade must be repealed.

The only real basis for overturning Roe is contained within the decision itself. The judges who decided the case wrote that if the personhood of the unborn were established, that they would be completely protected under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

So, to take the position that the states have the right to decide whether unalienable rights are to be observed in this country is to undermine the very legal, intellectual and moral arguments you need to overturn Roe in the first place.

You also overthrow any justification for overturning abortion in the states.

This question was supposedly settled in the GOP decades ago. The "states' rights on abortion" position was the Gerald R. Ford position. The Ronald Reagan position, the one I am positing, prevailed in 1976 and became part of the platform.