Posted on 07/24/2010 3:47:23 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Below is a transcript of a portion of Fred Thompson's interview with Rich Galen on his radio show July 23, 2010 in which Thompson and Galen discuss the relative merits of Gingrich and Palin, as well as the likelihood that either or both will enter the GOP.
Galen is a former press Secretary to Gingrich, and he gives the back of his hand to Sarah Palin in the interview, calling her "a really interesting personalit[y]...but not necessarily ... qualified to be the nominee or be president." Incredibly, and to his discredit, Thompson laughingly agrees:
"THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that. I mean, I think she’s, uh...you know...she’s doing what she does and she’s doing what she does better than anybody we’ve seen in a long time.
THOMPSON: You know she may be in the first stages of Newtism, and that is, uh, being...being a real player and going around the country making lots of money. (Laughs)
GALEN: Yeah, and ...
THOMPSON: That’s what Newt’s done for a long time and maybe he’s ready...maybe he’s ready for the next stage and maybe, uh, you’re right. Maybe Sarah’s idea is that she’ll do this for a while and then her second stage will come along a little later."
As someone who supported Fred Thompson in 2007-8 both on this forum and financially, I am bitterly disappointed that, at a minimum, he did not correct Galen's outrageous statement that she is unqualified to be either the nominee or the President. I know Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin would have defended her because I have heard them both do it. In fact, Galen would never even have made such an outrageous statement in front of them because he would know it would draw a harsh refudiation from either El Rushbo or the Great One. (In fact, I heard Levin take Ann Coulter to task one time because she trashed Thompson).
Instead, he says "uh huh" and proceeds to amplify Galen's canard by citing the lamestream media/GOP Establishment wishful thinking-spin that she is too happy making money to run. Galen is a RINO "gun for hire" and former employee of Gingrich. He is not admirable, but he is doing what he is paid for. Fred Thompson has no such excuse. Shame on him.
The transcript of the entire segment on Newt and Palin is below:
"THOMPSON: Rich Galen, the founder of Mullings.com, the wit and wisdom of Rich Galen uh, if you want to check that out. Rich, you’ve been around here a long time, uh, you worked for Newt Gingrich, you worked for Dan Quayle and, uh, GOPAC and uh...
GALEN: And Fred Thompson..
THOMPSON: Yeah, I thank you much for that. We had a lot of fun on the campaign trail. They’re coming out of the woodwork now. Do you think Newt might be serious this time...?
GALEN: Yeah I do...
THOMPSON: You know Newt pretty well and Newt, this time of the year every four years you know, uh, says, “Well, I’m thinking about it, I’m thinking about it” and then he doesn’t. What do you think?
GALEN: Yeah, I think that, uh, that this time, unless there is some..something pops up between now and next February that says “don’t do it”, he’s...I think he’s disposed to do it. So I think he’s gonna be a candidate.
THOMPSON: Is that right? How do you think he figures...is it as clear as, you know, it seems to be, and that is that Obama is very unpopular and, uh, he can’t come back like Reagan did, uh, in his second two years and be re-elected?
GALEN: And Clinton did...
THOMPSON: And Clinton did...
GALEN: Yeah, you can’t..I don’t think you can project that far out. I think what Newt is...and I’m putting words in his mouth; I haven’t discussed this with him...I have discussed the first part with him, but not this part.
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: The, uh, I think what Newt is looking at is A) the Republican competition, first of all. I mean, it doesn’t matter whether the incumbent can be defeated. If you’re not the nominee then it doesn’t make any difference. Um, and uh, I think he looks across the landscape, uh and he sees some really interesting personalities.
THOMPSON: (Loudly laughs) You’ve been in town too long Rich, you’re becoming too diplomatic. (Loudly laughs again)
GALEN: But not necessarily people who are qualified to be the nominee or be president.
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: And uh, I don’t think Sarah Palin’s ever going to be the nominee. I don’t think she believes that she can be the nominee and I’m not sure she wants to get into that. I mean, I think she’s, uh...you know...she’s doing what she does and she’s doing what she does better than anybody we’ve seen in a long time.
THOMPSON: You know she may be in the first stages of Newtism, and that is, uh, being...being a real player and going around the country making lots of money. (Laughs)
GALEN: Yeah, and ...
THOMPSON: That’s what Newt’s done for a long time and maybe he’s ready...maybe he’s ready for the next stage and maybe, uh, you’re right. Maybe Sarah’s idea is that she’ll do this for a while and then her second stage will come along a little later.
GALEN: There’s no, uh, I mean there’s no advantage for somebody like Sarah Palin to absolutely do, uh, you know, do a, uh, what’s the statement that we always talk about?
THOMPSON: Sherman-like...
GALEN: A Sherman statement, you know, if nominated I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. I mean, it doesn’t do any good to take herself out of the running. It makes good sense for her to be among the mentioned and, uh, you know why get in the way of that? Next Spring, sometime, she’ll decide what she wants to do and everybody will react to it then. But uh,...
THOMPSON: Uh huh...
GALEN: Yeah, I think the threshold question is I think Newt is serious about it.
So now you can tell me what your conservative credentials are, since you saw fit to call me out and claim I was a journo-lister.
Please list, specifically, what you've done PERSONALLY to advance the conservative cause.
I'll wait.
Yeah, you know, I think I remember reading somewhere that Alaska was really big. Like maybe even the biggest state.
A big state but about 70% or so owned and controlled by the Federal gov’t not the state gov’t.
“the most articulate voice of conservatism today”...
I don’t think you read enough, sir.
I am only in my mid 20s. I supported and worked in the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign locally, and then again for McCain-Palin in 2008.
How can you not admire Sarah Palin ? all she has been through..
That’s good to know. I figured you for 19. Wow. An impressive record. It certainly entitles you to pass judgment on people 2 decades your senior; call them out as “not conservative”; and accuse them of being part of Journolist; just because they have a different take on a candidate than you.
I was thrilled when McCain picked her, and I think the beat-down would have been worse otherwise. I just don't think she's the best we can do.
Is she the one he went with in HS ... she was his teacher?
Did she die?
If Newt should get the nomination, how will the MSM spin it while ignoring John Edwards?
Craig Shirley, a charter member of the Reagan Revolution and the author of 2 outstanding books on Reagan's 1976 and 1980 campaigns, is currently writing an authorized biography of Gingrich. The timing is no accident. He's running and he would leave Mitt Romney, for instance, in his dust.
With all due respect, it takes more than some kind of hard luck or rough treatment to be qualified for the chief executive position. To the left, Obama’s “non-traditional” upbringing and his perserverence of his youth (what with being shunned by his father, then his mother, the communist advisors, brush with drugs, etc)...overcoming that to graduate from harvard, etc etc...they think that is a compelling story. When you look into the man’s qualifications, other than the narrative, you don’t have a lot. Narrative isn’t enough to lead.
Palin accepted the nomination for Veep, and took the predictable slings and arrows that followed that, I’ll give her that. But that’s not enough. Gurn has a point, and you need to separate how you feel about Sarah and her role as an outspoken conservative. Do you really think she is articulate? Do you really think she has a keen analytical mind and can dissect arguments and debate well? What I am saying, and what I think Gurn is saying is: no. She is not the best we can do as a candidate, and further, she is not the best we can do for a leader. Doesn’t mean we’re communists, just discerning about who we want to represent us.
He WILL NOT get my vote. We can and must do better than a has been.
“the most articulate voice of conservatism today”...
I don’t think you read enough, sir.
I just know that anyone who thinks negative of Sarah Palin is not a person that I can trust or respect. She is a pretty good litmus test.
Those who don’t like her in MOST cases (not saying you are)are morally bankrupt freaks who watch the MSM.
I’d go with Krauthammer.
I think there are other examples too. We criticize the left for their “poll tested viewpoints”. I could see Sarah relying on such mechanisms when governing. A key differentiator of conservatism is that it is a value-based movement. You agree up front on a set of values and you apply that lens to every challenge. Contrast with the left where every situation needs to be individually analyzed and the answer more often than not is “it depends” - then you don’t really know what you’re going to get in the way of decisions. Ceding sovereignty, bridges to nowhere, quitting the job, etc...these are some questionable decisions. Gov Christie in New Jersey seems to have the “lens” right. He is applying those standards to everything he runs across and acting accordingly without having to spend a lot of time doing analysis. When you’re not in lock step with the values and can apply them to any situation in a hurry to make the right decision...you’re as dangerous as the left. I can’t support that.
There simply is no time for unknowns at this point to gain enough traction to be a serious candidate. This is not the Democrat Party where a Barack Obama can come out of nowhere.
It's Gingrich, Romney or Palin (if she runs) and maybe Haley Barbour, although I think he's too tied to the South. People need to take a stand. JMO.
Or how about Ballinamuck?
In 1978 it was just clear, the country was headed for disaster and it was obvious to anyone with a brain that Carter had to be removed.
Lowell Weicker was just another liberal who obviously would have done no better than Carter. I think Howard Baker was highly respected across ideological lines but he just never put together a good campaign (see Fred Thompson). That left George Bush, who at the time struck a lot of us as the second coming of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who was, it was said, just too old. There were some other guys but I don’t remember them.
The point is, by now in the run up to 1980 I think most Conservatives felt that Reagan was going to be the guy - at least if you were sitting in California. Even though he in no way a perfect choice at the time. You just felt that he had the ideas to fix the country and the political experience to make it happen.
I feel none of that this time. The people we have range from too inexperienced to idea challenged to down right toxic.
The other thing to remember is that Dems then weren’t like Dems now. Factionalism was much less obvious then than it is now - and factionalism is the death of republics.
Either that or her ideas are actually simple. Think about it. I don’t hear any complex ideas, and where she starts to make an argument scratching at the surface of complexity, I recognize it from someone else’s recent article, blog post, or interview on TV. Can’t we do better?
FRiend, I say this with all due respect. I don’t think Sarah is some kind of hidden mental giant.
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.