Fred Thompson Is No Ronald Reagan

The American Thinker ^ | March 26, 2007 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[RepublicanPatriot]

Yes, Thompson has portrayed strong executive leadership in his acting roles, but what reason do we have to believe that he will exhibit the same qualities in real life? Unlike Reagan, to whom he sometimes is compared, Thompson has never led a major labor organization, never served as governor, and never been considered one of the leaders of the conservative movement in this country.

[Paperdoll]

>Look what's hidden in Smokey backroom.<

Lest we overlook the foggy fact that Fred Thompson was second in command in John McCain's 2000 campaign.

[Politicalmom]

Elevated shoes? :)

[neocon1984]

Ron Paul for president? Talk about cult of personality. How often do you visit Roswell, NM to look for sign of alien landings?

I am fearful that Free Republic has attracted a fringe crowd, and I don't mean Rudy supporters. Ronnie would not approve of how this "debate" is shaping up. We either stand together with the eventual nominee or we shall fall divided.

May the best nominee win in November '08.

[Steel Wolf]

The author of this piece asks, Is Fred Thompson presidential material? He is not convinced.

He may not be convinced, but he's in good company. Apparently Free Republic is in intellectual free fall. This isn't a debate thread; it's competing spasms of agony, displayed in text.

Rather than quote the article and dissect it on the merits of the arguement, people are thrashing around like snared wolves. So, assuming anyone's actually read the article, how do we feel about his points? He doesn't have any executive experience, and he doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to fight for the job. This ain't beanbag; it's presidential politics. Nobody's going to hand you the job. Is he going to stand on the sidelines with dry quips and commentary, hoping to get drafted, or is he going to roll up his sleeves and get in the pit?

[flashbunny]

"Look what’s hidden in Smokey backroom

Thompson's Mixed Abortion Record? "

I think it got put there because just before that, quidnunc had posted another Fred and abortion thread and then ran away after I and other posted things that showed fred thompson was endorsed by pro-life groups while he was running and had a very strong pro-life voting record. All he did was abandon that original thread and post another thread hoping people would buy that one.

[Paperdoll]

>I imagine the MSM is mortified by the possibility of a Thompson run :) A debate between Thompson and Hillary would be tantamount to manslaughter....<

The MSM has not ignored Thompson. Even Fred Barnes left Hunter's name off his list in his recent talk with Laura Ingraham.
Laura had interviewed Hunter, but Thompson's interview was repeated Saturday morning and he hasn't even entered the race! So even the so-called conservative press ignores Brownback and Hunter, the two true Conservatives actually running. But of course all entertainers (talk show hosts, actors and tv analyzers) must stick together./s

I think there would be little substance in such a debate on either side. Hillary would be trying to out "Suthun accent" Thompson, and Thompson would be drawling inconclusive platitudes as usual. Now Duncan Hunter would really punch holes in her shallow facade with solid, well thought out paragraphs, in yet a gentlemanly manner. :o)

[Graymatter]

Here's a shot of Fred with Chief Roberts...

[stephenjohnbanker]

Fred Barnes has evolved into a big govt, amnesty promoting schmuck.

Duncan Hunter is being deliberately ignored by the neocons and liberals in the MSM and this is no accident. They fear Hunter more than anyone else. Hunter is by far the best candidate for true conservatives. He would easily wipe the floor with Hillary if he ever gets the chance.

[Paperdoll]

ABSOLUTELY. GO DUNCAN HUNTER!

[traderrob6]

With or without the MSM he will never get the chance as 1-2% doesn't command so much as a glance.

[ryan71]

And Steve Young was no Joe Montana but he was better than joe at some things.

There will never be another Ronald Reagan, but Fred might be better.

I think it's silly to compare people.

[rbmillerjr]

My list of candidates worth considering is:

1 Hunter
2 Thompson
3 Tancredo

[traderrob6]

For those who missed it on the earlier post #80:

Two things. First, this explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative. Secondly, Bill Richardson appears to be the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the field, though that’s not saying much. In order to avoid making inferences based on what may be an anomalous year on the part of some candidates, let’s now take a look at the percentage of legislative years during which each candidate received an “A” grade from the NTU:

Percent of “A” Grades

Ron Paul: 100%
Tom Tancredo: 100%
Fred Thompson: 88%
John McCain: 67%
Newt Gingrich: 57%
Sam Brownback: 50%
Chuck Hagel: 30%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
All Democrats: 0%

[restornu]

Romney don't need to start propaganda there are too many others out there that all too willing!:)

[stephenjohnbanker]

Your homepage reminds me of Mark Twains great line.

" The public is a jackass "

[restornu]

Thanks for the update!:)

[WWTD]

One thing everyone has to admit - those who are committed to a candidate already - especially Rudy and Romney - are thrashing around as much as possible to tear Thompson down. He is the undeclared candidate they fear the most. Romney has tacked right of the other major candidates, but those clips of him claiming to be as pro-choice as the Dems will haunt him. Fred has always been conservative - his entry will demolish Romney. Rudy is the biggest celebrity in the race, but Fred's tought guy Hollywood image would make a dent in that advantage.

As for the "fire in the belly" problem, I agree that RR was the greatest president of the 20th century, and he certainly did run for four years before 1980. However, his 1976 candidacy was not so much planned - he ran because Ford did not represent the conservative movement, just as Thompson (and the rest of us) correctly perceive that there isn't a real conservative among Rudy McRomney.

Incidentally, our greatest president ever was George Washington. He was reluctant to be president as well. He never wanted a second term but was talked into it. Finally he walked away after eight years, and now the Consitution has codified his reluctance to serve more than eight years as wisdom that should be shared by all the others.

By the way - until Fred's name got tossed around, I was in the Rudy camp. He is a terrific leader, but just not a conservative. And it goes without saying that I will vote for any of these candidates before Hillary or Obama. Only Bill Richardson has any chance to get my vote among the dems, and he is polling in the single digits. The Republican nomination will he a battle, especially if Fred Thompson enters. We conservatives want a candidate who reflects our values, and Fred is the best thing out there right now who could possibly win the nomination.

[flashbunny]

They can put him in lifts, or put everyone else in a shallow trench.

[Sicon]

Fred Thompson Is No Ronald Reagan

He ain't no stinking John McCain, either! (Thankfully)

[Redcloak]

He's not Reagan so we should what... Support Rudy-the-RINO?

I'm having trouble determining where the author is going with this. We'll never find another Reagan; but, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If the primary process says that Thompson is the best conservative offering for the nomination, then I'll support him. If the GOP insists upon stuffing Giuliani down our throats because "awful" is somehow a better alternative to "not perfect", then I'll be out hunting on Election Day.