Posted on 04/03/2007 12:35:10 PM PDT by Livin_large
According to Bob Novak, GOP celebrity Fred Thompson is — wait for it, wait for it — “for real”!
Yes: “In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles because he is filling the conservative void in the field.”
The conservative void? Sure. McCain is now neither a maverick nor a conservative — at the very least, social conservatives don’t trust him. Giuliani is way too liberal on key wedge issues and has a past that is, well, eccentric. Romney claims to be a social conservative, but his Mormonism and his former liberalism on some of those key wedge issues have alienated quite a few of those whom he has tried to win over. And Brownback just isn’t “a viable candidate,” despite his extremism on the key wedge issues.
Which leaves the Thompsons, I suppose — Fred and Tommy.
As I argued here, I don’t think Tommy can win the nomination, but who knows? Given the problems with the major candidates, he could just sneak up into the top tier and pull off the huge upset.
Fred lacks Tommy’s experience — he lacks experience generally — but, again, he’s a celebrity. And not just a political celebrity like, say, Obama. No, he’s a genuine pop culture celebrity, the macho star of testosterone-driven hits on big screen and small screen alike, just the sort of Hollywood type Republicans like. (See also Schwarzenegger, Arnold; Willis, Bruce; and Norris, Chuck.)
Social conservatives may see Fred as “the only conservative who can be nominated,” but in this case, as in most cases when it comes to presidential politics, it’s all about image. Here’s the most revealing line in Novak’s column:
Their appreciation of him stems not from his eight years as a U.S. senator from Tennessee but from his role as Manhattan district attorney on the TV series “Law & Order.” The part was molded to Thompson’s specifications as a tough prosecutor, lending him political star power.
That says it all. Republicans are desperately searching for a celebrity candidate to run in ‘08 — they won’t be able to run on their record, which has been horrendous, so they’ll have to run on the personality of their nominee — and Fred seems to fit the mold perfectly.
Or, rather, his character does, the on-screen version of the man.
In a literal case of politics as popular entertainment, Republicans could soon find themselves supporting, and eventually voting for, a fiction.
Thompson is the only major candidate who can turn out the base. Rudy/McLame/Romney are all social liberals; they can’t pull enough votes from the left-center to defeat Hitlery, and the base will stay home if any of them are the nominee.
So Freddy is the only candidate with a reasonable change to beat the witch.
Yeah, he's against it.
Yes. He told Chris Wallace a couple of Sundays ago that he favors a fence first policy.
I guarantee it’s better that Rudy’s!
From here: (not tnecssarily a great source) http://postpolitical.com/ppblog/2007/03/19/fred-thompsons-voting-record-by-issue-category/
Fred Thompson on Immigration
* Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
* Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
He is very very tough on illegal immigration.
I heard him say: “we can and should stop these illegal immigrants, and don’t tell me it cost us 5 cents more on bananas - I don’t want to hear that”
The man will not be out communicated - if he runs, he will bring new meaning to “straight talk”.
Not actually correct, however. His eight years as US Senator racked up a solidly conservative voting record, and his recent statements in a number of venues confirms that record. That's where the appreciation comes from.
Hit pieces starting on Thompson already, eh?
Run, Fred, RUN!!!!!
* Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
* Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
And I think all three of these are fine. Now, the Buchanan/Tancredo crowd out there who thinks we ought to eliminate ALL immigration won't be too happy, but I'm not one of them. I've no problem with allowing more visas for workers, so long as they're here legally.
Weren’t you a Rudybot? heheheeh
What does this comment tell us about the author's biases and prejudices? Moderate, my @ss.
Yeah, you can just smell the fear emanating from Rudy McRomney! Exhilarating, isn't it?
Hear it from Fred himself:
Tommy Thompson may have the credentials but he hits a -20 on the charisma meter.
Honestly folks, he’s our best chance. He’s not perfect, and his wife dresses like a call-girl; but he’s the best we got.
Rudy was great on 9/11, but that only goes so far. His personal life is a disaster waiting for the Dem pimp media to exploit.
McLame is...well, lame.
Romney is a Mormon. And while I love Mormons, personally, the MSM will portray him as the leader of a dangerous cult.
It’s Freddy or Hitlery, make your mind up.
THOMPSON: No, no, no, no.
WALLACE: Well, let me put up on the screen something that you said last year about illegals, and let's take a look at it. "You're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."
Now, you said, "Look, it's just not realistic that we're going to round up 12 million people and ship them all out of the country."
THOMPSON: Well, that's true, as a general statement. We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with.
I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.
I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things — certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.
But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.
You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen.
I’ve said before, I still like Hunter, but I don’t see him gaining ground anywhere. If Thompson makes a formal announcement, the election will be his to lose!
...now if he would just announce,and get the jump on ANY candidate....make a point of it. Bring Charlie Daniels along to make a few speeches on campaign trips....you talk about excitement for a candidate. The left would go into a comma. This subject must always be part of his speeches..if he is serious about capturing votes....none of this skip over *hit and move on to someone’ pet subject of the day.
I don’t understand, when between 65 and 80% of the American people polled (both parties)want tighter security, the alien mess cleaned up (no amnesty)...why?..why? no one strong candidate don’t use it?
I am a Rudy supporter - yes ma’am.
100%
But I also like Fred Thompson.
I also “like” Duncan Hunter
I like Mitt
I like Newt..
I like all our guys - except one - who shall go nameless
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.