Fredipedia v2.26: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
Posted on 04/29/2007 6:43:32 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Fred Thompson has captured the imagination of conservatives who find themselves dissatisfied with the current crop of presidential contenders. They want to find a nominee who combines the charisma of Rudy Giuliani, the firmness on the war of John McCain, and the conservative domestic policies of Duncant Hunter and Mike Huckabee. In short, conservatives want another Ronald Reagan.
According to some of those who worked for Ronald Reagan, they may have it in Thompson:
"Ronald Reagan's closest allies are throwing their weight behind the White House bid by the late president's fellow actor, Fred Thompson."
"The film star and former Republican senator from Tennessee will this week use a speech in the heart of Reagan country, in southern California, to woo party bigwigs in what insiders say is the next step in his coming out as a candidate."
"A key figure in the Reagan inner circle has now given his seal of approval to Mr Thompson, best known as a star of the television crime drama Law and Order."
"As deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver was a key member of the 'troika' of aides who kept the Reagan White House on track. With the chief of staff James Baker and special assistant Ed Meese, he was the master of image and presentation."
Deaver has remained at the forefront of the Reagan legacy, and has close contacts with Nancy Reagan. Clark Judge, one of Reagan's speechwriters, also supports Thompson, calling Thompson "a man of tremendous substance". Roger Stone, a Reagan campaign strategist, notes that Thompson has Reagan's self-assurance without the cockiness of George W Bush, and that he communicates wisdom and deliberation.
With this team forming, it's obvious that Thompson will join the race. If that wasn't enough, his upcoming appearance at the Lincoln Club this Friday should make it clear. It has worked for Republican electoral success since it helped inspire Reagan to run for governor, and it made history when it assisted Arnold Schwarzenegger and pushed the recall effort that made him a successor to Reagan in California. If Thompson can bring the Lincoln Club behind him, he will have a force in political fundraising on his team -- and will have gotten a jump on the other Republicans that have conservatives pining for Fred as the new Reagan.
All of this is true, and yet Thompson is both less and more than Ronald Reagan. Thompson has a long record of political reform from the ground up, first with Watergate and then in Tennessee. His acting career followed his political career, while Reagan did it the other way around. Reagan spent years grooming himself for higher office by speaking on the dinner circuit, building his rhetorical repetoire for a long-shot run at the California governor's office, followed by two attempts to win the Republican presidential nomination.
In contrast, Thompson has not appeared to seek high office, nor has Thompson worked on what looked to be in retrospect a grand plan for a political career. That lack of ego may work to Thompson's advantage in an era of deep skepticism. It's not Reagan, but it's Thompson, and Thompson might sell as the reluctant philosopher, drafted out of necessity.
If I may, this is not 2008 yet, please don’t start comparing Reagan to Thompson or people will have to find all the ways he isn’t a Reagan.....
In 2008 my candidate will be the conservative choice, but for now I am leaving options open...to soon to commit.
The man has my vote.
I agree, too early. Let’s stick to facts like ‘Fredopedia’ and maybe get a chart comparing all the candidates. When 2008 gets here conservatives should have more to tout that saying “the new Reagan” or “made in the Reagan mold” or what ever. Just hard facts of his stands and principles.
Thompson will never be President, he doesn’t have the fire in the belly it take to get there.
He is a political Hamlet, should I or shouldn’t I? That won’t get it done. Reminds me of the old Democrat Adeli Stevenson. Never could make up his mind.
We have one chance next year and that’s Rudy. I know, I know, there’s lots about him I don’t like either. But he knows what he’s about, and he knows what he’s doing.
We need a candidate that the media will protray as “responsible” and not a “real conservative”. Remember, it’s Rudy or Hillary.
he is not going to run. if he chose to run the operational, financial, structural (timing of primaries) etc would doom him.
if you read the NYT today on the serious logistical problems H (who has been running for 10 years) has, you will understand why late entrants have almost impossible track.
getting the nomination in 2008 bears no relationship to when Reagan ran ... nor even when Bush ran. everything is front loaded. the nominiation race is over on Feb 5th when the majority of the delegates are chosen on that date.
Fredipedia v2.25 ~ The definitive Fred Thompson Resource
Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list can often be extremely active
That's no chance. Ya'll are insane to push a guy guaranteed to split the party.
The lessor of two evils is still evil. Rudy will never get my vote.
We need a candidate that the media will protray as “responsible” and not a “real conservative”.
Check yourself into the next nuthouse you pass...
Fred is running. He will announce when he is ready. Fred Thompson will be the next President of the United States.
Rudy (problems with making up his mind about family) has nearly as much personal baggage as Miss Hitlery.
Thompson may well turn out to have the best combination of ideas and communication skills of any Republican candidate this cycle.
Once the general election cycle comes around, the press will endeavor to portray the more conservative candidate as either “mean” or “clumsy/inarticulate/not-very-bright” as they have with every other national candidate for the past 40 years:
* Nixon - mean
* Ford - clumsy/inarticulate
* Reagan - not very bright
* Bush 1 - inarticulate in ‘88, out of touch in ‘92
Quayle - not very bright in both elections (they piled so much on Quayle because is was simply impossible to call Bush 1 either ‘mean’ or ‘dumb’)
* Dole - mean
* Bush 2 - inarticulate/not-very bright
Cheney - mean
Looking ahead to ‘88, there are some very good GOP candidates but in many cases it is obvious how the MSM will portray them to the public once the primary season ends:
* McCain - mean (because he really is)
* Guilliani - mean, because of his family problems and because he has accumulated a long list of tender-hearted New York liberal politicians whose feelings were hurt while he was fixing NYC
* Romney - mean, because he has a accumulated a long list of tender-hearted Massachusetts liberal politicians whose feelings were hurt while he was trying and mostly failing to fix Massachusetts (he didn’t get very far in cleaning up the Mass mess, so the mean label might not stick)
* Hunter - mean, because he picks on illegal immigrants (and basically unknown, he won’t be the nominee)
* Huckabee - don’t know, every time I think of him I think of the play title ‘I heart Huckabee’ so it probably won’t be mean, but he does not have the name recognition he needs at this stage to win the nomination
* Gingrich - meaner than mean (because he’s usually the smartest man in the room and liberals hate that)
* Gilmore - mean (but should be not-very-bright, he did not leave the Virginia GOP in good shape for future success after his term as governor)
With the war on terror continuing, and illegal immigration being an important issue, the ‘mean’ label is much more likely to stick than the ‘not very bright label’, so we should be prepared for it.
Fred Thompson’s great advantage is he has a folksy humorous speaking style that will make it very hard for anyone to characterize him as mean. If anyone hasn’t listened to him substituting for Paul Harvey on the radio, they should tune in, before a candidacy announcement takes him off the air.
Because Thompson can’t be attacked as mean, he will certainly be attached from the other direction as a ‘lightweight’. For example, ‘sure he was a two term senator who actually fulfilled his campaign pledge to serve only two terms, but what were his legislative accomplishments?’ (by definition ‘legislative accomplishments’ can only be passage of bills which require federal intrusion into some new segment of our lives). And they will certainly go into overdrive making fun of his acting career.
However, Thompson’s resume and his ability to articulate ideas should be enough to overcome the ‘lightweight’ label. Unlike Reagan who should be sainted for the lifetime of abuse he took for his ‘Bedtime for Bonzo’ role, Thompson has been the recipient of some decently good roles in fairly intelligent movies and tv shows. And much to the chagrin of the MSM, the American people usually decide whether a person is smart enough to be President for themselves. Given the issues that will be on the table in 2008, I would much rather not field a candidate that can be smeered as ‘mean’.
In that case you'll wind up with whoever the MSM or GOP insiders choose, like when the MSM chose Bob Dull for us in 1996 and like when GOP insiders chose George W.Bush for us in 2000.
The choice is being made now, whether we like it or not.
You can pick a train now, or wait at the station until it's all over.
stopem wrote: “If I may, this is not 2008 yet, please don’t start comparing Reagan to Thompson or people will have to find all the ways he isn’t a Reagan...”
Like Morrissey said in his CQ article, “It’s not Reagan, but it’s Thompson.”
Whether you like it or not, pundits have been and will continue to be drawing the contrasts and comparisons between Reagan and Thompson. Fred is his own man, and he’s the first to say that there was only one Ronald Reagan.
But no one can dispute the fact that having the people from Reagan’s innermost circle behind Fred Thompson is a tremendous political asset. Like addressing the California Lincoln Day dinner, this is something all the GOP presidential candidates fought for, but only Fred Thompson won.
The results of the presidential preference straw poll recently held by the California Republican Assembly (in which Fred beat Duncan Hunter on Hunter’s own turf and Rudy finshed second to last) are even further evidence that Fred Thompson is Number 1 with California’s conservatives, and he will soon be Number 1 with conservatives from coast to coast.
“Rudy will never get my vote.”
But if he becomes the Republican candidate, will you still stay home? This is good news for Hillary.
Yeah, we need a "responsible conservative" in the tradition of big winners like Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Tom Dewey, the 1960 version of Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford.
fredalan wrote: “he is not going to run. if he chose to run the operational, financial, structural (timing of primaries) etc would doom him.
if you read the NYT today on the serious logistical problems H (who has been running for 10 years) has, you will understand why late entrants have almost impossible track.”
The New York Times? Geez, get your head out of liberal land. Every conservative knows better than believe anything the NYT prints. LOL!
kjo wrote: “Remember, it’s Rudy or Hillary.”
That’s a load of manure. Both Rudy and Hillary have negatives that are waaaay too high to be elected. Sheesh! Some people need to get out of New York more often...
He did NOT support amnesty!!
He voted against an amnesty that never became a bill.
The Paul Harvey gig can continue if he announces.
Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn’t the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office
Paul Harvey is a regularly scheduled newcast.
Instead of labeling Fred as mean, I think the MSM will focus on health, i.e. age and lymphoma.
There is no way that the lightweight label will stick. Fred is seriously bright and actually can answer questions and address issues instead of speaking in sound bytes. That will be so refreshing and in such contradiction to the other candidates that the crossover voters will immediately take notice. Add to the mix that he is persuasive in such a fashion that the reader (listener) doesn't realize he is being persuaded.
A Fred Thompson candidacy will be a cure for those cynical about Washington politics. This is why he will win.
353FMG wrote: “But if [Rudy] becomes the Republican candidate, will you still stay home? This is good news for Hillary.”
But you proceed from a false assumption. Rudy will never become the Republican candidate. There’s too much time left for conservatives to learn just how radically liberal Rudy is on the four key social issues: abortion, immigration, gays and guns.
Giuliani’s pretty much poisoned himself by saying he’s for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. It’s a slow-acting poison, but fatal nonetheless.
Your comment brought a good chuckle this morning. I was looking for the /sarcasm at the end but could not find it.
M-F can always be repealed or overturned. While I disagree with Thompson on that level, I still can accept him as President. When Giuliani signs AWB2, I have lost Second Amendment rights that I will never get back. AWB1 sunsetted...AWB2 won't. Whatever we lose with AWB2 is gone forever. That's why we can't afford to have Giuliani or Romney in the Oval Office.
This is a good article. It conveys new information that former key people from the Reagan years are getting behind FDT.
This is really good news.
Lead us on Fred!
I won't stay at home, but I will vote for someone more acceptable. It's obvious the Republican Party didn't learn any lessons after November 2006. If they loose in 2008, then maybe they'll do some soul searching and return to the core values important to conservatives. But I absolutely refuse to vote for someone who seeks to gut the Second Amendment. That is not an option for me.
the NYT is a left leaning paper that often misstates anythign other than what they believe in.
if u choose to read the article, it talks about H challenges with logistical, financial, strain on the health of the candidate etc issues ... not a policy article
what I was attempting to point out is FT or any late starter has enormous hurdles that are not comparable to ANY previous primary process ... which is what the article says.
I always look at what the agnostic London bookies say about a candidate chances ... they have a great track record.
The inability to declare for at least another two months by FT is one of the reasons FT has plummeted in the last week in those “polls” - 30% down. Making wonderful speeches is great ... but his best strategy is to do nothing but position as the “alternative” - that always seems better than the present candidates ... if RG does not wrap it up on Feb 5th (which I think he will) ... then he may become a compromise candidate.
To declare before Feb 5th would be a losing strategy
Hostage wrote: “This is a good article. It conveys new information that former key people from the Reagan years are getting behind FDT.
This is really good news.”
It’s excellent news, Hostage, and possibly the greatest boost to Fred’s campaign since his Fox News Sunday interview last month.
The Reagan insiders are not quick to get behind any candidate. They have already been burned once, with George Allen.
In the 2006 Virginia Senate campaign, James Webb tried to assume the Reagan mantle, using a 1985 video of Ronald Reagan complimenting James Webb’s military service in his first political ad: “James’ gallantry as a Marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations,” Reagan says. An announcer’s voice continues as Reagan’s image morphs into pictures of Webb as a soldier...
Nancy Reagan went through the roof over this, and her office fired off a three-paragraph letter to Webb HQ saying that the use of footage of President Reagan was “neither authorized nor appropriate.”
That same day, three former Reagan peers — former Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein, former Attorney General Ed Meese, and former Reagan Campaign Chairman and U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt issued a statement:
“We are disappointed that James Webb is dishonoring the memory of President Reagan by using an old video clip to imply that Ronald Reagan would be supporting him. He should be ashamed of himself.”
“It is Senator George Allen whose leadership, integrity and optimism reminds us of President Reagan. On virtually every issue, from the consistency of his views and outlook, to his constant support for low taxes and less government spending, to his commitment to supporting judges who will interpret the law rather than make new law, it is Senator Allen who is the true heir to President Reagan.”
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4551
Allen proved he wasn’t worthy to be Reagan’s successor with his macacca stumble and seemingly endless apologies for it. The Reagan team had been silent on the subject of Reagan’s political heir since Allen’s electoral defeat -until now.
Now the Reagan team has found a much better candidate to throw its weight behind than Allen. In Fred Thompson they have found the REAL legitimate political heir to Ronald Reagan.
They could have stayed much closer to home by choosing Duncan Hunter, but they didn’t. They chose Fred Thompson instead, realizing that Fred has the best chance of any conservative to win both the GOP nomination and the general election.
Fred Thompson could ask for no more stronger political allies than than the men from Ronald Reagan’s innermost circle.
Thank you for your reply.
I have to ask HOW is Thompson like Reagan? Can you draw the comparisons please? What are all the ways that he is “like Reagan” ?
You see I am not a convinced voter yet.
Platitudes won’t convince me. Conservative VALUES and morals, will.
What is his stance when it comes to our military?
How does he feel about abortion?
How would he vote about going to war?
Would you say he is a neocon?
Does he have globalist views?
Does he support illegal immigration?
How does he feel about the deficit?
Is he fiscally conservative?
Is he Bi-partisan?
How does he feel about Marriage?
Does he feel there is global warming or not?
Me thinks there is method to his madness. He's probably waiting, allowing the Dems to waste their resources focusing their invective on those who already announced.
We have one chance next year and that’s Rudy.
Now that would be a tragedy.
If you were really interested you would have done your own homework. Every Fred thread has the “Fredepedia” posted.
http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php/topic,3739.msg6790.html#msg6790%22;;;;;;;;;
Back up your assertation that he can’t declare for two months.
Source that quote, otherwise shut up.
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.
(From the Chris Wallace)
read later, self ping
I think he was surprised by the reaction to his appearance on Fox. That wasn’t so long ago, and unlike Ross Perot, he doesn’t have his own money to tap. Wait until after the Lincoln speech. If that goes well, he may jump in.
Fred IS running as we post.
He just hasn’t “declared” yet.
There are good reasons for this.
Yet his support base continues to grow.
TV and Radio committments
they have just finished “Law and Order” - not finished showing till June.
if he were to declare, and L&O is shown (with him in it) every other candidate has to get equal time.
re-runs also have to omit him once he announces
That isn’t two months.
And since his producer wants him to run, he may have helped him reduce his commitment time.
“Friends bet that Thompson will run. He clearly wants to try, and his wife, Jeri, is all for it. But he wants to avoid the pitfalls encountered by Democrat Barack Obama, who may have hurt himself by starting his campaign too quickly.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100810.html
“We have one chance next year and that’s Rudy . . .”
We Who? We democrats?
does anyone know how fred stands on the illegal immigration situation?
believe what u choose ... FT was still shooting a week ago ... and this is 4/29 ... last new show showing is scheduled for June
this is a is what it is ... not what one wishes it were
Basically, it will be a take it or leave it package; a kind of "Contract with America"..for the Presidency. I don't think he's going to screw around playing pander politics....he will make the voters choose between a bunch of politicians flopping around the roseberry bush and "a program to fix America's problems".
Totally a guess - no inside knowledge. I just see him as that kind of guy; What You See Is What You get!
I will vote for the nominee of my party. I hope that guy is Fred Thompson. Ordered my bumperstickers, plus spares for friends, this week.
he is supporting Bush’s position.
FT seems like a decent person but like all non-candidates, people can put all their dreams into empty vessels.
when postions become clearer, then people get unhappy
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.