There's Something About Fred
On A Holiday Weekend
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Fred Thompson — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The post went up, originally, at 4:08 p.m. EDT on Saturday, March 7, 2007, a holiday weekend. Within two hours it had 69 comments. On a holiday weekend. Within 15 hours it had over 150 comments. On a holiday weekend. Within 24 hours of the post appearing, it became the fifth most popular post at RedState since we've had the ability to track -- and I'd venture to say is in the top five for all time at RedState. On a holiday weekend. The series of tubes we call the internets has been buzzing about Sen. Thompson's entry into the blogosphere. We've gotten inbound links from across the conservative blogosphere and even from the left.
The vast majority of the links have thanked the senator for finally saying what the rest of us were thinking and begging him to run. Why? Lest we forget, Fred Thompson was a one and a half term Senator with no elected executive experience -- of course that still makes him more qualified than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But why does Fred Thompson excite so many people including me?
Read on . . .
I think it is because this is the first candidate who conforms not just to how we see ourselves, but who also seems a perfect fit for the American electorate.1 Fred is one of us and throughout his elected time in office, he was one of us. There has been no moving to the right for Fred -- he's been right in line with our values and, more importantly, he's not afraid to speak plainly and boldly to defend our values.2
That comes down to the core issue of this primary season. The other candidates running, from Romney to Brownback to McCain to Giuliani are spending their time nuance-ing issues and they really don't have time to talk about the big issues in expressive terms. Part of that, to be sure, arises from Thompson not actually being a candidate. But the other part comes from Thompson's unwillingness to mince words and nuance. That, I think, is where the "Southern Fried Reagan" comparison comes from, not from the acting. Reagan was unafraid to call government the problem. Thompson is unafraid to call government the problem. Reagan was unafraid to speak boldy, Thompson laid the smack down to the Iranians and in the process gave Reuters a fist across the jaw too.
The others? They are willing to hold on to the moniker of "compassionate conservatism," which is just another way of saying the nonsensical "big government conservative." They seem, and I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, too unwilling to say anything that might give a hint at offending general election, non-base, voters. In effect, they are using code words, subtle winks, and third party surrogates to woo the base, while themselves not speaking plainly enough that some mushy moderate voter in Dubuque might get offended. In short, they strike many as being scared or ashamed to be conservative despite every winning Presidential candidate since 1980, including Clinton, running as a conservative.
Fred Thompson speaks to many of us in a way the other candidates do not. He has natural charisma, he does not come across as too clever by half, and he impresses us with his willingness to unapologetically fight on our side — heck, that he is willing to fight at all on our side is enough for a lot of us. The other candidates are still out trying to convince the Republican base that they are one of us. Romney is trying to convince us that he is a pro-life, small government hunter. Rudy is trying to convince us that while he's not one of us, he'll stand by us, but just don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. McCain is trying to convince us that despite his ego and what he said about those damned Christofascist wingnuts, he really is a Christofascist wingnut too. Fred Thompson does not have to. He is already one of us and that is why we like him.
Fred Thompson is not the perfect candidate. He just strikes a large segment of the base as more perfect than the other candidates.
-
I have, however, learned a lesson from Hugh Hewitt and, like with him and Mitt Romney, I will not endorse Fred Thompson.
↩ -
In 1994, according to the Hotline, Fred Thompson ran as a "pro-choice" Republican who favored ending government funding to Planned Parenthood, ending taxpayer subsidized abortions, re-implementing the Mexico City Policy, allowing parental notification statutes, and allowing states to pass laws to restrict abortion. He was, in effect, more pro-life in 1994, than Mitt Romney was in 2002.
The other sore spot in Thompson's record is his very ardent support for campaign finance reform. He supported McCain in the 2000 election and was, during his time in the Senate, a zealous advocate of BCRA. In addition, he used his chairmanship of the Senate's government oversight committee to investigate Clinton administration campaign finance violations relating to the communists in China.
After leaving office, however, Thompson has backed away from his support for BCRA conceding it has not worked and saying, "I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately." (Source).
To be sure, he is not the perfect candidate, but he strikes many on the right to be more perfect than the other guys.
↩
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Rudy: "I Support Taxpayer Funded Handguns for Poor People" — Comments (35) »
There's Something About Fred 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Perfect was Barry Goldwater, more than four decades ago. I don't have four more decades to wait. Although my scruples incline me to a write in for Calvin Coolidge, now that was perfect, I am not entwined and in thrall to them. They are a guide, not a straitjacket.
Unless I am misreading Erick his #2 seems not to follow from his #1, meaning #2 seems hardly a reason to not vote for or endorse him.
The man has style and substance and although the actor bit will be beat to death by the juvenile nasties of the objective media, he has what these poorly trained potty goers fixated on in 2000, gravitas. Which they managed to spot in Al Gore, last seen trying to stuff his neck under his collar and looking like a stuffed turkey.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
They were separate footnotes.
In 2, the two points listed are, I think, Thompson's biggest negatives, which I don't think are huge negatives against him.
were running today would we have a perfect candidate? I can deal with a guy who says I should not have voted for something and it should be scrapped than someone who dances around wrong votes. Also if he was "pro-choice" as FDT was called in 1994, I would vote for that in a heartbeat.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
I have, however, learned a lesson from Hugh Hewitt and, like with him and Mitt Romney, I will not endorse Fred Thompson.
I however will and do endorse Fred Thomson.
Everything about Fred Thompson IS for us, our country and always has been!
Oh, AND no more "sore spots";
Reform That Has Really Paid Off
By Norman Ornstein and Anthony Corrado Jr.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR200703...
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and the sincerity of Hollywood."
which I think he will in May, watch the explosion. There is much talk building about FDT being late to the party, particularly from a monetary view. This disadvantage will disappear overnight. I predict that within three months of his announcement FDT will have more money than any other candidate regardless of party. Why you asked?
Because the group everyone has forgotten about, the old "silent majority" will awaken and be energized. The tsunami will blow everyone away, particularly the left who collectively thinks they run the show. What a lesson they will learn.