Posted on 06/28/2007 11:46:13 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Fred Thompson is on the verge of declaring his candidacy for the 2008 race for President of the U.S. With his star quality and down-home demeanor he is already running second among the Republicans in some polls and first in others. Thompson’s “late” entry to the race and his quick rise to the top have to be frustrating to those candidates who slogged their way through organization-building and the early debates. It helps, of course, that Thompson has a well-connected wife with PR savvy and legions of powerful political friends willing to support and endorse a candidacy before it gets off the ground.
One of the stars of the TV show, Law and Order, Thompson is often described as Reaganesque; he is tall, muscular, has a populist style, sincere manner and has an appealing show-biz quality that other candidates envy. The Reagan comparisons, of course, increased when he went to England to seek the endorsement of Lady Margaret Thatcher, a close friend, political ally and colleague of President Reagan.
Obviously, when he declares his candidacy he will be scrutinized by opponents in his own party as well as by the opposition. He has a 10-year record as a Senator; reporters will be combing through that record and all the related rhetoric for indications of where he stands on various pivotal issues. His problems will likely stem from interviews in the early 90s when he said that he opposed criminalizing abortion and opposed a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of life. Further, at that time he told reporters that while he was pro-life, he didn’t support the prohibition of early term abortions.
Those documented statements contrast with his solidly conservative voting record in the Senate. Thompson explains the difference by citing the effect of seeing his now 3-year-old daughter’s sonogram. At that time, he explains, the pro-life issue became a position of the heart as well as of the head.
Another inconsistency that will haunt Thompson is the fact that he helped get the McCain-Feingold bill passed. That controversial legislation prohibited advocacy groups from explaining candidates’ positions from 30-60 days prior to primary and general elections. Though an original co-sponsor of the bill, Thompson now says that McCain-Feingold went too far. The Supreme Court agrees. Just this week, the Supreme Court reversed restrictions on “issue advocacy” –– a move that will enable groups to inform the public about candidates’ positions on critical issues during the last weeks of a campaign.
Conservatives, then, will have to decide whether to put their vote on the line with Thompson’s rhetoric or stand with his record.
A very experienced businessman once told me, “Managers don’t always hire the most qualified person; they hire the candidate that they are most comfortable with.” I’ve seen that happen over and over again. People hire people like themselves –– job candidates with whom they are comfortable. I think the same principle applies in the voting booth. People vote for the candidate they “like” and Fred Thompson is very likeable. People vote for the candidate that they feel they can trust, and Fred Thompson seems trustworthy. Voters go for the person who makes them feel comfortable, and Fred Thompson has the gift of making people feel like he is one of them. At the same time, he combines natural authority and a certain down-home dignity; no wonder his name comes to mind when producers are looking for someone to play an authoritative official for a movie or television program.
It is entirely possible that, come November 2008, the voters will turn Fred Thompson’s way simply because he is likeable, seems trustworthy and they are comfortable with him. At this point, though –– about a year-and-a-half before the election –– Thompson has not even declared his candidacy, so any analysis of his potential in the race is pure speculation. It’s pretty significant, though, that nobody counts him out and people are falling all over each other to join his campaign.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns.
Ahhh, here we go again!
Record. Rhetoric counts for nada.
Isn't this similar to Miers who had been pro-choice years ago but had changed her stance in the interim?
Fred Ping....
Duncan Hunter
Rhetoric doesn’t change laws; votes do.
He was elected twice in Tennessee. He is not pro-abortion.
Next.
The media just don’t get it. It is like two men running from the bear. Fred doesn’t have to be the perfect conservative. He just has to be the best conservative who is running and who can win. So far, in my opinion, he fills that bill. There is no other Republican who could win the nomination who has stronger conservative credentials.
Actually, this is a pretty fair article. And I think Fred supporter have no problem with his record being scrutinized. There will be things people disagree with, but overall Fred is very solid.
Yep.
As far as I'm concerned Fred's the man to take this one. Is he perfect? Of course not. But look at the DANG CHOICES.
Perfectionists will once again be unsatisfied with any Republican candidate, and hammer hard any one suggested. Up until now, they had a point (with Rudy McRomney). But now is the time to focus on the best shot we have, and indeed, hardly a comprimise that would require much nose holding.
So, until I see something drastic (and not what I've seen in this piece, which is just regurgitated anti-Thomoson bilge), I'm going with him and HOPING he WILL run.
The perfectionists can have their Ron Paul, et al. Once again, their vote won't matter anyway.
His current rhetoric matches his record. It's largely his earlier rhetoric that is getting spun.
‘His problems will likely stem from interviews in the early 90s when he said that he opposed criminalizing abortion and opposed a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of life. Further, at that time he told reporters that while he was pro-life, he didn’t support the prohibition of early term abortions. ‘
It won’t have any real effect politically in the 2008 race. Those that would like a Democrat in the Whitehouse hope that will be the case, but its wishful thinking.
i agree 100%, that is it in a nutshell. there is no need to quibble over half the stupid crap that is raised about him, because short of someone as electable and as conservative as he is entering the race, i will be voting for him.
I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for him. It's way too early for me to tell.
But that's not such a great thing to have accomplished IMO.
Post #15 tells a different story.
I'm glad you think so. I respect Janice Shaw Crouse but I was wondering if she was swallowing the MSM kool-aid regarding Fred.
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.