Replies

I’m baffled by the concept that “passion” is a good quality for a President. In a President, I would prefer a rock-solid, even-keeled, unshakable figure ... someone who isn’t governed by feelings or “passion”, but by reasoned conservatism.

I too would prefer someone who would govern dispassionately. If this were a monarchy and by some chance we had a choice between two options that would make sense. But, this is a representative republic where voting matters. Therefore, a politician must lead, not only through robotic principle & actions, but through eloquent rhetoric and leadership. Otherwise, the Republican party continues to lose followers.

This country is chock-full of “passionate” political figures ... and its gotten us a bunch of wacko liberals vying for evening-news soundbites and trying to look pretty for the cameras. A “passionate” political scene is one where each side shoots its mouth off, ever escalating the political rhetoric, and continually failing to get anything done.

Conservatism isn’t about passion - its about reasoned Constitutional stances on issues.

That doesn't mean one can't be passionate in their support of reasoned Constitutional stances on issues. Rush Limbaugh is certainly passionate about conservatism.

What people have here cited as a lack of passion from Fred Thompson, I’ve seen as a steadfast, stoic, reasonable approach to American Politics ... and, honestly, just what this country needs after 15-years of constant political sniping during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Might be, but the country doesn't always know what's good for it.

'Slow and steady' doesn't always win the race, sometimes 'slow and steady' gets steamrolled.