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]

>We can probably all agree that there is no one like Reagan out there (and please don't say Duncan Hunter)<

Well, I will, too, say Duncan Hunter. 14 terms in Congress with a good Conservative record and continuing accomplishments against 2 terms in the Senate with no outstanding results that I've heard of, typecast actor, the odds seems mighty heavy in favor of Duncan Hunter to me.

[depressed in 06]

He does have ability to provide clear and reasoned responses to political attacks, the major failing of the Bush administration. They failed to promptly respond to Bolshecrat propaganda until it was too late. Cheney was much better at it than Bush, but, he had the disadvantage of not being able to vigorously defend his positions. I agree that managerial skills of a large organization would be beneficial, but, he could make that up with a VP with those skills. And, I would love to see JC(not that one) on the ticket, but, Rudy or Romney would be OK.

The road back from serfdom requires a president and senate filibuster proof.

[M203M4]

BUMP

[WKB]

Wow, A giuliani backer going after fred thompson. Who woulda thunk that?




See tag line!!

[RockinRight]

He's pretty damn close IMHO.

[RockinRight]

I've never even watched L & O and I love the guy.

[xsmommy]

i always get a charge out of those that posit that Thompson's appeal is to the TV watchers who love him on law and order. i have never even seen the show, have no idea when it's on, and i agree, i think Fred is great.

[jpl]

Let's not forget that back in the day, Reagan was derided as a "dunce" by most of the so-called elite in America.

Only now are small handfuls of them grudgingly admitting that maybe the guy actually did have a brain after all. It's kind of funny really.

[papasmurf]

I'm not one who has compared Fred with the Gipper. Not that he is lesser, nor greater. Just an individual man. Let him come into his own, and we will see whether or not he can be a great leader.

Don't kid yourself, a candidate's past record in office isn't really a sure indication of his future actions. We've seen this, time and time again. We all base our votes on many different factors...experience, voting record, the knowledge imparted from others, what we read, faith, etc. We roll the dice, we takes our chances. :)

Speaking for myself, based on what I know, have seen, and have learned about him, I'm willing to bet he will be a great leader in his own right. And, I believe very deeply, he will be better than anyone we are seeing currently.

Why hasn't he announced? Just a hunch, but I think he has two questions to answer to himself first...
1. Can I deliver? Do I really have what it takes to lead this Country on the path the I believe is right and good?
2. Will I be able to garner the support, with votes and money, that I need to get elected?

Each one of those two questions will spawn several other questions, as well. Let's hope and Pray he can answer them and get the right answers.

:O)

P

[SuziQ]

My answer to the question is, "Does it matter"?

I don't intend to judge all future Republican nominees by the Reagan measuring stick. Reagan was great, but he had his own faults. I'm looking for someone who shares my views, but is also electable. In order to be electable, he would have to be able to garner almost all the Republican votes out there, as well as those of a fair number of those who consider themselves 'Independents'.

I may be partisan when it comes to the Republican primaries, but I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the General Election. Even if the Republican nominee does not hold all the same views as I, I'm pretty sure he'll be closer to them than ANY Democrat candidate would ever be, so I'll go for the Republican.

[Princip. Conservative]

Hmmm. I'm not really convinced by Fred Thompson of late, either. We'll just have to wait and see, but right now, I'm not really enamored with his politics.

[Zon]

LOL!! very funny.

[DesScorp]

There will never be another Reagan, but Fred can be a great one. I can't believe people here are actually questioning his intellect. I mean seriously, if you're that damn in love with Rudy or Mitt, fine, but questioning Thompson's intellect is just silly. He's a very, very sharp guy.

[TommyDale]

"Wow, A giuliani backer going after fred thompson. Who woulda thunk that?"

Yeah, these Rudybots can't come up with anything positive about their own candidate, so they are always here with their hatred, bashing everyone else. /sarcasm

[HawaiianGecko]

Heck, Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan.

[ConservaTexan]

I am hesitant to support a candidate who, less than a year before the first primaries, has not even decided if he wants the job. Or why.

There is nothing remotely Reaganesque about that.

Reagan declared his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President on November 13, 1979. Less than a year before the Presidential Election and only months before the primaries started!

[Calpernia]

I would like to know more about the investigations of the Asia fundraising scandal and Thompson's role.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805040/posts
Sen. Fred Thompson's Campaign Finance Investigation Riles His Own Party

[papasmurf]

Roflmao!!! That was hilarious.

:O)

P

[dirtboy]

LOL. That's presidential timber all right.

It is in this day and age. People are getting sick of having their tax dollars abused by both parties.

[traderrob6]

I do a little of your homework for you....

Fiscally fisking the 2008 contenders

As a strong fiscal conservative, I’ve long awaited a comprehensive analysis that sizes up the ‘08 field on both taxes AND spending. Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union, we now have some idea of where the candidates on both sides of the aisle stand on economic growth and size-and-scope of government issues. NTU has released a nifty scorecard that ranks all of the presidential contenders with legislative records on these issues, meaning that, unfortunately, we don’t get to see where candidates with only executive experience fit into the overall snapshot. Still, the results are enlightening, and in some cases, a bit surprising.

Each year, NTU assigns a grade to each Member of Congress w/r/t his or her votes on legislation related to taxes, debt, regulation, and spending. The NTU looks both at the percentage of the time the legislator voted for the taxpayer, and at the importance of each of those votes, weighing each vote accordingly. This prevents, for example, a congresscritter voting in favor of several small tax credits but against a huge tax cut from earning a higher score than a legislator who did the opposite, thus presenting a more accurate picture of where the candidates stand on fiscal issues than would a raw vote count. According to NTU, here are the ‘08 candidates’ most recent grades:

NTU Congressional Rating (most recent legislative year)

John McCain: A (88%)
Ron Paul: A (84%)
Sam Brownback: A (84%)
Newt Gingrich: A (79%)
Tom Tancredo: A (76%)
Fred Thompson: A (73%)
Chuck Hagel: B+ (82%)
Duncan Hunter: B (62%)
Bill Richardson: F (33%)
John Edwards: F (22%)
Dennis Kucinich: F (22%)
Hillary Clinton: F (17%)
Barack Obama: F (16%)
Joe Biden: F (11%)
Chris Dodd: F (10%)

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%

McCain is likely hurt by his opposition to the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade. Thompson, interestingly, received an A from the NTU almost every year he was in the Senate, bested only by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And, finally, NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government. The results are a bit surprising:

Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year

Bill Richardson: -$1.6 billion
Fred Thompson: $3.1 billion
Newt Gingrich: $4.5 billion
Barack Obama: $11.7 billion
Tom Tancredo: $13.7 billion
Duncan Hunter: $15.8 billion
Sam Brownback: $19 billion
Ron Paul: $34 billion
John McCain: $36.9 billion
Chuck Hagel: $86.7 billion
Joe Biden: $90 billion
John Edwards: $103.5 billion
Chris Dodd: $224 billion
Hillary Clinton: $378.2 billion
Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s legislative agenda would actually have led to net cuts in government. If Bill Richardson were the prototypical Democrat, I would likely have to rethink my party affiliation. And if anyone is the heir to Bill Clinton in the Democratic field, it’s Barack Obama, with his tax-and-don’t-spend policies, which are very similar to the former president’s agenda, and which is far more Clintonian than Ms. Rodham’s tax-and-spend liberalism. In fact, Hillary’s attempts to grow government dwarf those of every Republican and most Democrats in the field, proving Dick Morris right when he postulated that Hillary would be our first European-style socialist president.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.