Posted on 08/18/2007 9:21:51 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON Hes an actor-turned-politician in the mode of Ronald Reagan, someone whos 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.
Thompsons 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 lets 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 publics attention.
Both men come across as strong, authoritative figures on stage and screen. Their speaking voices are fluent and resonant, though vastly different. Reagans was smooth, mellow, grandfatherly. Thompsons 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 Reagans 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. Hes very much someone whos talking to you.
One of Reagans 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 doesnt know whether Thompson has that talent because hes 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 Thompsons oratory skills.
Hes 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 Thompsons 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 dont think he has any of those skills at all.
Thompson just doesnt 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 peoples spirits, said David E. Johnson, a political consultant in Atlanta who worked on Bob Doles presidential campaign in 1988.
That was Reagans whole persona, Johnson said. Thats what his greatness was, very much like Jack Kennedy. Thompson, on the other hand, is more a just the facts type of person. He doesnt 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, Thompsons 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 doesnt 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.
Nah. A flawed man is sufficient.
But, he needs to have a basic understanding of fundamental American principles, and have demonstrated the courage to fight for them.
The right to life, liberty, and private property are non-negotiable to me. If that were so with more people, maybe America’s slide into socialism could be stopped.
Romney / Thompson, Thompson / Romney in either order would be a pretty good, balanced ticket.
The main risk to either scenario of course is Rudy.
So, do you expect me to drop my belief and faith in my pick, and follow yours?
I believe in Fred, I think he has all the makings to become a great leader. I sincerely do.
I think Hunter and Tancredo are great conservatives, but lack the ability to become great leaders. That’s only my opinion...but I’m keepin’ it. :)
I think rudy and mitt are two faced liars who would sell their Mothers and their Grand Mothers to get what they want. One’s a scumball opportunist, with an inherited mental defect, and the other is a rich, spolied baby posing as a snakeoil salesman. Of course that’s how I see them, your mileage may vary. LOL
I respect others’ right to choose a different, or the same, candidate and, I haven’t been trying to change anyone’s mind. I enjoy discussing the merits, and the lack of them, on every candidate...but I disdain all the FReeper against FReeper name calling, flames, and yes, even the lies that have been posted.
For me, it’s not that I want to teach anyone a lesson. I want to vote for the candidate that I have chosen, and not live to regret it. I regret so many from the past 35 years, and I don’t like that feeling.
peace.
The difference, of course, is that Thompson was a politician. He was in Washington. He devoted a good part of his life to the political process.
But never wanted to assume full responsibility. Until now, when he has an enormous grassroots effort to give it to him. Very little work involved, particularly relative to the other candidates. Just show up some time around September.
Nope. Thompson is going to have to prove himself, which I don’t think he has until this point.
I know I didn't write this, and I really doubt it can be construed from my post, so let's call it willful misinterpretation on your part, OK? So,if you're going to be making prescriptions and offering remedies, well, go ahead and connect the dots, doc.
Fred Thompson is not "presidential."
Hillary Clinton is a "shoe-in."
Now, how did I imply that the former is a consequence of the latter?
PS. People who turn what I said into what you said about what I said make great leftists. Conservatives don't engage in such tactics.
My worry with Fred Thompson is that his cancer is going to come out of remission. It’s bound to happen.
There was a study published about his form of cancer not long ago. 86% of the people at Thompson’s point were either sick or dead.
If his cancer recurs, there’s no going back once he is the nominee. And we may very well be in a position where a Vice President would need to step up.
“These types of articles serve no purpose other than to create animosity among FReepers.”
“Looking back over this thread, I was, sadly, 100% correct.”
Yes, you were!
Not that we don’t have ‘fraggin’ freepers’ eager to do the bashing of Republican candidates themselves at the drop of a hat.
In this thread we see whining about FredT’s lack of hair and , even dumber, MittR’s too perfect hair. All while people miss the big picture: Reagan *was* concerned about image, but what made Reagan great was the content of his message and not its package. A clear, consistent, articulate conservative is what is needed. Let’s not worry about hair, but about what these candidates are saying.
Oh, and if you are bashing a Presidential contender because they are not 100% perfect according to your own particular specific narrow perspective, consider that a Presidential candidate has to win a majority of 100 million votes.
NOBODY who is electable enough to get 51 million votes will be ‘perfect’ to those of very strong views.
This is why I say: Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
Michael Reagan supports Romney. Laura Ingraham was caught on camera *gasp* hugging Ann Romney. They are TWO relatively famous Reagan concervatives. Mitt is NO Hillary, and I find it unbelievable and ridiculous that you'd make such a juxtaposition.
As someone who's been politically involved for thirty years, your question is not only insulting but idiotic. It would appear, like many pro-lifers, you need to learn more about politics before learnin' other's about the subject.
Well, why don't you practice what you preach and stop putting words in my mouth? I have never, ever said that Rudy or Mitt are the only ones who can beat Hillary, and in fact I have posted hundreds of times saying that Rudy will never beat her. I am only saying that staying home will result in Hillary appointing two supremes.
BTW, are you just against Southerners?
Where the heck are you getting that crap? I've never said anything bad about Southerners.
IIRC I think it was an interview with Sean Hannity, Fred said there is only one Reagan. To me that means Fred does not claim to be another Reagan. He is his own man and will campaign best in a way that he is comfortable with.
Reagan did his wonderful speeches by constant practice, going around the country speaking to GE audiences with the same message over and over. Candidates today will not have that intense of a way to train to do this.
Reporters don’t do Fred any favors by articles like these because it is usually followed by, Fred claims to be another Reagan which he does not.
Some of the other candidates may claim to be like Reagan but Fred has not.
That said, personally I see resemblances to Reagan. Reagan is a good president to emulate, he got things done and encouraged people with his words. I think Fred does too IMHO. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
“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.”
Whoa, your ‘career platform’ comment doesnt fit. Mitt has spent more time in the private sector, very successfully, than any of the other candidates. Why do you group him with lifetime-in-Govt-service guys like McCain and Rudy? Mitt and FredT are both refreshing in that they have had a life outside the beltway.
Whether you agree or not with their views, at least give credit to all the candidates that they are running on what they believe is the best for American people. last I checked, the Presidency wasnt a very cushy job.
Don’t you know that the “Big C” discussion is off limits at this place?
I think we’re totally on the same page.
It’s pretty sad when you need to resort to using a would be candidate’s medical condition to scare folks into supporting someone else.
Is your candidate that bad you need to do this?
If the doctor’s say he’s fit to run, then that’s good enough for me. It should be for you too.
How ironic that the new alleged “Great Communicator,” ex-abortion lobbyist FRed Thompson, worked for ten years to pass legislation to deny other people the right to communicate.
Every time John McCain appears on TV, someone on Free Republic says "he looks awful" or "I wonder if his cancer is coming back". John McCain happened to have a very visible cancer, and the treatment caused side effects that linger to this day in the swelling of his face. Should we not bring that up?
Rudy had prostate cancer that was supposedly cured, if he showed up to the Iowa State Fair, and had obviously lost weight, looked drawn out, and just looked older than the last time we saw him, wouldn't you think questioning of his health would be appropriate? If it would be ok for us to question McCain or Guiliani, why can't we question Fred?
I honestly think that if Fred was sick, he would not throw his hat in the ring, I do believe his doctors, but I also wonder why we should not be questioning him in light of a diagnosis that has almost a certain (according to his doctors) chance of recurrence. Why is it off limits?
We know without a doubt that if he becomes the nominee, that 60 minutes, 20/20 and all those types of shows will do exposes on his type of cancer, and point out the statistics that state that his type of cancer does reappear. It may be treatable, but it will come back.
You have the stink of fear on you.
Dragging WAnker filth into this forum will NOT help your Willard’s credibility problems.
Real Reagan conservatives on Romney's staff would be telling him to apologize for his lies about Reagan's abortion record. So is Willard refusing to apologize, or are there no actual Reagan conservatives on his staff?
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.