I disagree that he has not demonstrated it. He did demonstrate a committment to advancing this party and has tirelessly worked to get our candidates elected.
"You know better than that about Democrats. I know better than that about Democrats. Thompson worked with them every day and didn't? Gimme a break."
He expected them to keep their word. Is that his fault ? What you're asking here is for him to have gone ahead and acted in a similarly deceitful and arbitrary way as Chairman. That's not his style. He possesses no guile. If he did, he wouldn't be a Republican (unless he's Slick Willard).
"Then he's either an excellent actor and a fraud or a dupe, take your pick. I prefer the former; I don't think he's that dumb, which by the way, means that I think more highly of him than you apparently do."
No, again, he expected them to live up to their word. He wasn't going to play their games and act in a deceitful way to counter them. He's a straight-shooter. I think, again, what you're accusing him of is not being ruthless enough. In that account, you're correct. He may simply be too nice and too honorable a man. If you want to argue that point, then I'll concede it to you.
"The Russians were the ultimate "immovable force" and Reagan dealt them a body blow while operating with the constraint of a hostile congress. It was because he knew how to lead."
Since Fred wasn't elected to such an executive position, we cannot assess how he would've reacted. Methinks had Reagan gotten elected to the Senate in 1974 (as he had initially planned to do, against freshman Cranston) and had found himself in a majority (absent a Watergate) and chairing a committee, he may have operated exactly like Fred. But we'll never be able to assess that either, since he never made it to the Senate.
"Frankly, I hold Gingrich in higher regard for his evident accomplishments in this instance. He took a minority, got the people to hear the message, and that was what made the majority."
Gingrich acted in a more ruthless manner to get us a majority, however he also left under a cloud (whereas Fred didn't), and has demonstrated occasionally squishiness and poor judgment. A valid argument you can use against Fred, as cited above, that he lacks the ruthlessness needed to combat the Democrats at a time like this serving in such a position. In that instance, again, I cede you that point. I'm not definitively sold on Fred for the position. I'd like to see all the potential applicants. All I can say is that he is honest, he's done yeoman work for the party, ISN'T lazy, and is well-respected.
There are thousands of volunteers who meet that standard. It is not sufficient to make a President or a Party Chair.
He expected them to keep their word. Is that his fault ?
Absolutely it is. It is unethical to trust an untrustworthy person.
What you're asking here is for him to have gone ahead and acted in a similarly deceitful and arbitrary way as Chairman.
Not at all, indeed, quite the contrary. Reflect upon that before you react.
He possesses no guile.
I don't really know that and neither do you. Nor does managing a claque of compulsive liars for what they are have anything to do with deceitfulness or guile. It is a matter of honesty to treat the situation as it is and speak forthrightly about it.
No, again, he expected them to live up to their word.
Fool me once... fool me twice...
Since Fred wasn't elected to such an executive position, we cannot assess how he would've reacted.
Sure we can, else no one can be assessed for higher office. This is a red herring unworthy of you.
Gingrich acted in a more ruthless manner to get us a majority, however he also left under a cloud (whereas Fred didn't), and has demonstrated occasionally squishiness and poor judgment.
I agree completely and had considered that. He is still far more effective than Fred Thompson, and possibly less of a poseur. IMO, he may in fact be a pied piper who took the fall at exactly the right time.
All I can say is that he is honest, he's done yeoman work for the party, ISN'T lazy, and is well-respected.
As to honest, there has been many a deep plant throughout history who was regarded as such, so I am withholding that accolade considering what happened with Chinagate and the primary. As to hard working for Republicans, that is doubtless. It is not sufficient for me to want him in that position.