Heh.
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.”
Bob Dole redux?
Uh...No. Bob Dole lacked gravitas and a consistent spine. Although he had wit and humor, he was unable to ‘connect’ with enough of the American electorate because he appeared too much of a Washington insider, someone who valued his connections and friends in DC more than his principles.
He was frequently on the correct side of an argument but he often caved and failed to mount an adequate response or fight to democrat big-government proposals.
Fred Thompson on the other hand understands what needs to be done and what is necessary to win. He is much more formidable that Bob Dole could have ever been.
Fred has also asked people not to compare him with Reagan.
The important thing here is that anyone with the ability to earn the admiration and hopes of people, anyone with the ability to communicate in a way that people can understand and connect with, that person will without doubt be compared to Ronald Reagan and be called the “Second Coming of Reagan” or “Reaganesque”. This labeling raises expectations to a legendary level and sets up such a person to disappoint.
But Fred Thompson will win hearts and minds by being Fred Thompson, not a mimic of Ronald Reagan.
You really take the cake, Duffy.
If Fred dressed ‘down’ you’d say he wasn’t taking the day seriously.
So he wears serious shoes befitting his stature and you cream him because his shoes aren’t poop proof!
I thought that I heard the sound of braying....
“Conservatism, Republicanism, is a philosophy of strength. We believe in a strong military, a strong economy, and in strong families and values. We believe in the American people.
“Democrats believe that government is the source of our strength. They’re wrong. I love what Ronald Reagan said: ‘It’s not that liberals are ignorant, it’s just that what they know is wrong!’
“The American people are the source of our strength - hard working, educated, risk taking, opportunity loving, God fearing, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, freedom loving American people. They have always been the source of our strength and they always will be!
“And when you need to call on the strength of America, you don’t strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.
“You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, not by taxing them more when they earn, taxing them when they save and taxing them when they die!
“You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of a handful of unelected judges.
“You strengthen the American people with the world’s best healthcare, the world’s best schools, and the world’s strongest families. We must preserve the institution of marriage - every child deserves a mother and a father!
“This is not a time for our party to shrink from conservative principles. It is a time to hold them aloft. “
ALSO:
“Let’s provide people with their own private, affordable and portable insurance by insisting on personal responsibility and the principles of the free market. Let’s not have the same bureaucracy that ran the Katrina clean-up manage our healthcare!
“The Democrats have a plan for illegal immigration as well. It’s amnesty. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their colleagues insist that every illegal immigrant become a legal permanent resident of this country. Some people think that their position has less to do with compassion than with calculation - they hope these illegal immigrants will vote them in power forever.
“But this is not about power or politics. It is about sovereignty and security. And it is about fairness. Millions of applicants are waiting to come here legally, to be joined with family members, to bring education and skill that will strengthen our nation, not burden it. Legal immigration is a boon to our nation. We are made a greater nation when immigrants come here legally, seeking opportunity.
“Let’s secure the border, install an employment verification system and tell illegal immigrants to get in line with everyone else. There should be no special pathway to permanent residency or citizenship for those who have come here illegally!
“Amnesty didn’t work before and it won’t work now!”
You can imagine Romney saying all of the above, since it is what he delviered in his speech to YRs in July:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Young_Republican_National_Convention
And then DuffyDonk creams him for use of a golf cart which enables him to see and be seen by more folks.
$he Seem$ jealou$ of the money he $ave$ by not buying vote$.
$he $eem$ to have an eternal ca$e of PM$ in regard to Thomp$on. The eternal &itching wear$ thin.
ok...you described all of the top gop candidates as not having presidential mettle, with the exception of Guiliani. That is synonamous with not being presidential. And then you say that Hillary’s victim of Bill status will easily trump Thompson and that all other candidates on both sides are basically weak. I will admitt that the shoe in part was a little exaggerated, but that is the way you came across. And then you accuse me of completely twisting it and acting like a leftist. Please, reread your post and try to be a little objective to your own pessimism which you think is brutal honesty, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting your whole post.
“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.”
It’s nothing personal Beelzebubba, EV has a problem with every candidate who has a ghost of a chance of getting nominated and beating Hillary. All but one of the current Republican presidential candidates declared support for repealing Roe v Wade. The exception being Rudy. This is amazing progress, considering how wobbly many in the GOP have been on life and abortion in the past.
Nothing is good enough for EV. He won’t be happy unless an uncompromising absolutist like his idol Keyes is made the standard-bearer.
Of course, even if the miracle happens and we get that person nominated, they will likely do as well as Keyes did against Obama (that is, miserably, a total wipeout), and we will have a liberal Democrat triumph.
There is a lot at stake in 2008 and one of the key things at stake is appointing judicially conservative Judges to the Supreme Court who don’t engage in liberal activism. if we ever want to change laws on abortion, our next step is repeal of Roe v Wade. Thompson “gets it”, Romney “gets it”, the rest of the candidates (Rudy excepted) are on board, several contenders have spoken forcefully and well on the issues; the conservative base sure as heck gets it: We have to have a President who nominates and get confirmed solid judicial conservatives if we are ever to get away from our ‘abortion-on-demand’ current situation.
The next Republican President (Rudy again excepted) will of course be much much better than Hillary on the matter - the difference between another Alito or another Ginsburg - and better probably than Reagan himself, who appointed O’Connor and Kennedy.
If you consider going back to 1976, and Gerald R. Ford's position, "progress," you have a very different interpretation of that word than I do.
well said. let Reagan be Reagan. Let Thompson be Thompson.
You discredit yourself with your distortions and misrepresentations and also, frankly, your idiotic lack of perspective. solid prolifers like Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, are way beyond Ford, and even Thompson and Romney are more prolife than Ford ever was. The party is far more prolife today than in 1976.
I honestly believe you must desire the doom of Republican candidates, all you is trash them all with lies.
And, it's obvious you don't have a clue concerning the difference between the Reagan position on abortion versus the position Jerry Ford took in 1976.
The positions of Romney, Thompson and Brownback, to name three, line up exactly with Ford's views. He said he opposed abortion, wanted Roe overturned, and wanted to "return the question of abortion to the states." So do the three candidates listed above. Giuliani is even further off the reservation.
But, starting in '76, and culminating in 1984, it was the Reagan platform, which called for a recognition of the personhood of the unborn, and the fact that they are therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, that won the debate. And so the GOP platform has remained TO THIS DAY.
You're ignorant. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
1984 Republican Platform plank on abortion:
The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations which advocate or support abortion. We commend the efforts of those individuals and religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternatives to abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnant women and offering adoption services where needed.
We applaud President Reagan's fine record of judicial appointments, and we reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
1988
Since its inception, the Republican Party has stood for the worth of every person. On that ground, we support the pluralism and diversity that have been part of our country's greatness. "Deep in our hearts, we do believe": That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations which advocate or support abortion. We commend the efforts of those individuals and religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternatives to abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnant women and offering adoption services where needed.
We applaud President Regan's fine record of judicial appointments, and we reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
1992
We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We reaffirm our support for appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
1996
The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Republicans in Congress took the lead in expanding assistance both for the costs of adoption and for the continuing care of adoptive children with special needs. Bill Clinton vetoed our adoption tax credit the first time around - and opposed our efforts to remove racial barriers to adoption - before joining in this long overdue measure of support for adoptive families.
Worse than that, he vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortions, a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide. We applaud Bob Dole's commitment to revoke the Clinton executive orders concerning abortion and to sign into law an end to partial-birth abortions.
2000
We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.
Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.
2004
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Oh, BTW, I forgot. Add Ron Paul to that list.
Oh, I think I do. I also know that whatever "substance" there is to Mitt seems to be more akin to something my dog would roll in. I don't see much in his resume that he has accomplished that is applicable on a political leadership level other than incessant flip-flopping on how he stands from one year to the next on key issues. He plays to what he thinks the audience wants to hear. But hey, that worked for clinton so I guess it's all right for him.
Heh.
You’re proud of stepping in cow poop? I guess everyone has some talent.
She regurgitates the same bile from thread to Fred thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883399/posts?page=14#14
You’re low, Cheyanne, very low, for continuing to drag out a person’s personal health issues to bolster your efforts at bringing him down.
He has the word of some of the world’s finest doctors that he is ok to be POTUS. What makes YOU an authority and gives YOU the right to counter them?
Really, you do sound like a du’er.
I LOVE that!
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.