Posted on 08/18/2007 9:21:51 PM PDT by SmithL
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.”
Neither is voting for someone because you believe that person is more electable than another.
I’ve voted in every election I was eligible to vote in for the last 35 years. Mostly, I voted “the ticket”. We see where that got us, and it was demonstrably shoved in our face this year.
This time, without remorse or apologies, I’m voting my pick, based on what I think is best for our Country.
I encourage you to do the same.
ROFL! *SNORT*
The Ronald Reagan position, the one I am positing, prevailed in 1976 and became part of the platform.
Give me a break, EV. You know in that context Reagan Man didn't mean it as that.
That's a cheap shot that'll make even liberals red-faced.
An Open Letter from Pro-Life Leaders Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003.
Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda. Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
•Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us. It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
Not me. I’ll be doing my part by voting for the one I think will be the best candidate and POTUS for our Country.
You are under the mistaken belief that only your guy is electable.
Shame on YOU! :)
I don’t know. Even though it’s been in the platform all these years, our “leaders” have studiously ignored it.
Maybe it’s time to actually implement it, eh?
A bit of hyperbole to make a very important point. Live with it.
I understand very well folks who think Fred is too liberal (his ontheissues.org chart shows him on the right-hand side of the moderate square) but I also think they are missing his underlying beliefs. This is a guy who understands federalism, and a guy who sees government service as a way to deal with problems he wants to solve, rather than as a career platform. Those are things we haven't seen in many candidates and I certainly ddon't see it in any of the Rudy McRomney frontrunners.
Yep. Forget all this "executive experience" nonsense. The difference will be who can run an across the board conservative campaign. Fred speeches, interviews and commentaries over the last half year all point to that.
Rudy and McCain haven't done it. Mitt has tried but he's having a hard time pulling it off.
Let's see what Fred does starting when he announces in September.
No, it certainly won't. Hillary will be the nominee and she is as vulnerable as a newborn kangaroo.
Well some people are excited because they have the same look.
cc:JCEccles
I really believe that God only gives us a man like that once a century.
18th--Washington
19th--Lincoln
20th--Reagan
Of course, we're in the 21st now, but I don't see another man of their caliber. Some good guys, but no Lincolns, no Reagans.
Reagan had more hair to start with!
Does this sound like “the great communicator”?:
“I chased a lot of women, and a lot of women chased me,” Thompson told Republican congressmen earlier this year. “And those that chased me tended to catch me.”
A great role model for our youth?
I can see Mitt doing it, and I think he knows he needs a coalition. But yeah, I think Fred’s got the better chance of building a big tent that’s really a big tent and not a sellout.
“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.”
I'm going out on a limb here and calling this professor for not liking southerners. He left it out, and maybe I'm reading too much into the professor's background, but I don't think so.
Of course, the prof also is devoted to the show, which means he probably likes the liberal positions taken by most of the characters, and he has two last names. So, I guess I am judging him as well, without even meeting him.
I've seen three FT speeches since the non-candidacy began. Two were fair, one was poor.
He has not demonstrated good communication skills, much less great ones. Maybe he'll get better.
In Ronald Reagan, the man and the moment coincided.
I don't believe that Fred is the man, and if he is, this is not his moment.
Does it matter to FReepers that Fred wore Gucci shoes to a state fair? I think they cost about $400 about the same price as John Edward’s hair-do.
If my husband spent $400 on a dang pair of shoes, I’d be real mad.
And then rides around on a golf cart.
One time when I was wearing sandals at Pleasanton (CA) County Fair, I stepped in cow poop and it crept up the sides and onto my bare feet! Good grief - I hurried to the bathroom and scrubbed and scrubbed.
Anyway, Fred will never have to worry about that kind of thing, apparently.
But I’m proud of it somehow, especially now. Ha!
I have never wanted to be President.
However, if I had millions of dollars, conservative ideas, thought I could help the country through a rough patch and on top of that I looked at the current field and saw the thre stooges likely to get the job, I'd get in. And I wouldn't be anyone's VP, either. For instance, being Giuliani's VP would only mean having a front row seat while he screws the country up.
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.