Palin and Newt, according to Fred Thompson and Rich Galen

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:

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)

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.

"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...

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...?

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: 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.

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: 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: 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?

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,...

GALEN: Yeah, I think the threshold question is I think Newt is serious about it.

"Someday you may realize she had to subvert her own views to johnboy’s during the campaign."

First of all, her she expressed support for the Law of the Sea Treat while she was Governor BEFORE she was selected by the McCain campaign. Her support for that monstrosity had nothing to do with the campaign. As for supporting the Bush bailout, I do not accept the excuse that she had to conform to the views expressed by the campaign. Early in the campaign I defended her against allegations that the was going to become a shill for McCain's positions by pointing out that she publicly stood up to him on Alaska drilling. In doing so she proved to me that she could stick to her own positions. On the other hand, it also removed any excuse for going along with the Bush bailout. After the campaign there was a paragraph in her book blaming their defeat on the public perception created by the GOP House Republicans opposing the bailout. The notion that they lost the election because the House GOP opposed the Bush bailout is the most absurd excuse I have heard yet.

Why are we so defensive about Sarah Palin on this board? I like what she says, but then again we should, we’ve heard it before. She’s regurgitating the same content she reads from the same pundits we listen to, and quite possibly this forum. I don’t think there’s anything to apologize for when we call someone out for just repeating what they hear, rather than being able to quickly perform some real time analysis and decision making by applying their education, experience, and skill to form a coherent conclusion.

I know the flamers, zotters and troll-spotters are getting ready to respond in force, and I really hate that I need to preface my ‘controversial’ statement saying I don’t think Sarah would make a good president by saying that I am as diehard conservative as any of you, as it automatically calls into question the veracity of the statement - as in the sales guy who says: “let me be honest with you”. (so, you weren’t being honest before?) But here goes: I am a veteran, business owner (my company was just named to the Inc. 500), Republican, conservative, Christian, married (to a woman, thank you), father, gun owner. I pay more in taxes than I made 5 years ago, and I am sick and tired of being characterized as not paying my fair share, being the bad guy, responsible for oppressing entire classes, even races now of fellow Americans because I am caucasian and successful...and I live in Arizona. /conservative qualifications soapbox mode: off

And though I generally like Sarah, I appreciate she speaks out when, for whatever reason, we can’t seem to get a lot of folks to the podium, I just don’t think she is presidential timber. I am not going to say I am sorry about that.

I listen to/read Mark Steyn a lot and I really like his perspectives on a lot of topics. I note that Sarah does too as she recycles some of his phrases - specifically “hopey changey”. I don’t know about you, but that comes across as a bit cheap to me when you rip off someone else’s Intellectual Property. She gets rounding applause when she invokes that phrase, but you all are well read enough that you’ve heard this and other of her talking points before, haven’t you? Its not like the current administration isn’t an easy enough target to take some shots you come up with on your own, and frankly that is what I expect from a leader. We (Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers) can’t have our sincere desire for someone who will represent our truly mainstream viewpoints met by someone who has to check a blog, or read an article to see what she thinks. And that’s exactly what I think Sarah has to do before she can make the case. I think the right side of most arguments can be made after 10-seconds of analysis. More taxes? bigger government? Enacting regulation that favors one class or race over another? These crazy arguments of the left are easy to break down to their simplest components and make them look foolish. Why would someone need to invoke the words of another to make that case? Its not enough for me.

I haven’t seen a thing that she has done, nor does it come across in an interview, debate or even a speech she does, that she is capable of coming up with her own case. I don’t mean that in a harsh way...I just haven’t seen it. And neither have you.

A recent poll indicated that any Republican would beat Obama at this point...as it should be! However, I don’t think “any ol Republican” would be able to govern well, and build up enough credibility as an effective leader to establish a conservative dynasty. To me, being a conservative is a common sense thing. We should be in power for the next 500 years. We need someone who can be articulate enough to argue down these snake oil salesmen from the left, including the journalists which will be nothing less than out to do her (or any Republican) harm. We need someone like Reagan who can point out the hypocrisy of the Left, and in real time, with panache and good humor. That is what will win the voting public over. Break down their double talk/newspeak to the ridiculousness it is. It must be done for the long term sanity of this country.

Sarah’s just not the right person to bring this message there. If she has time to rehearse, she can regurgitate. We need to get someone in there who can think on their feet, and beat back this tide of national mediocrity. We all know what is at stake.

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.