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.
Quite so, Janice, so why don't you go bake something and have a Guinness.
This guy’s sucking up to McCain is what disturbs me.
Hunter looks like our guy for this go-round.
First requirement ...conservative, second electable. Fred is the only candidate presently that satisfies both.
Dunkin Dough Nutz
Run Fred Run!
I would be happy to vote for Hunter if he made it past the primaries. Unfortunately, the Rudy-bots were right about one thing, name recognition is important. The only people in this country who know who Duncan Hunter is, are political junkies like us.
Ask anyone on the street. They might not even know who Thomoson is by name, but if you say, “That guy on Law & Order”, a mental picture comes to mind right away and they say “Oh yeah, I know him”. You say to someone regarding Hunter “You know, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee”, they’ll answer, “There’s a House Armed Services Committee? What do they do, arm Congress?”
Record.
Calling it “rhetoric” implicitly dismisses it without consideration.
I call is “his current expressed principles.” And they should be compared to his record, to see if there are inconsistencies. But we don’t plug our ears to what a candidate is saying in order to justify dismissing him.
As to McCain-Fielngold, “I was wrong” works for me. No weasel words.
Yes, but you are comparing Rudy to Fred, and truly there is no comparison. Rudy is a Lib . Fred is not .
(There, fixed it.)
I don’t see any inconsistency between opposing the creation of a federal abortion police state, and wanting the citizens of each state to have the right to establish their own abortion restrictions.
He may differ from the extremists on both sides, but he doesn’t differ from this conservative.
Face it, you can’t “win” on abortion based on “it’s murder.” You can only win on “it’s a state issue.”
Like I said, Miers changed her position too. Yet she was horse-whipped by conservatives.
“I was wrong” works for me
He doesn't say he was wrong on many aspects of the bill which are anti-free speech IMO.
And his support of McCain for President earlier? Well...that does give me great pause.
Fred Thompson's current "rhetoric" that he's against all amnesty "until the border is secure" and that he wants to crack down on employers who hire illegals certainly does NOT match his 1994-2006 "record" on this issue. I wish Fred voted like Hunter & Tancredo on immigration. He didn't.
Fred Thompson's Senate "record" on immigration is actually pretty simular to "RINO traitor" Lindsey Graham.
Not only “helping”...but co-sponsoring the theft of your rights...#3 on the list, right behind McCain and Feingold.
Regardless of the fact that the provision I had the biggest problem with was just overturned by the SC(free-speech blackout periods), Fred showed with that one act that he CAN and WILL thieve my 1A rights...especially if the bill “feels good” (CFR was a very politically sexy bill in the Senate at the time...41 co-sponsors)......despite later saying “oops...went too far” when campaigning for another office, some people just care about 1A rights and infringements thereof.
Shhhhh.....not supposed to talk of this Fred thieving 1A rights stuff.
Shhh. The Fredheads want us to believe that it's "treasonous" for Lindsey Graham to do that in the Senate, but when Fred had the SAME "record" in the Senate, we should get aboard the Fred Express and promote him to leader of the free world.
I don’t expect any candidate to be the “perfect conservative” with a completely unblemished record. I am still looking into Thompson and so far I like what I see. That he changed his position on abortion bothers me not at all. I changed MY position on abortion from one of largely indifferent approval to staunchly opposed so I am not going to hold his earlier stance on the issue against him.
So far all the attacks against Thompson I have read haven’t amounted to much beyond peevish carping. I will not vote for a RINO like Rudy under any circumstances. I would vote for McCain against any rat but never for him in a primary. I would also vote for Romney against any rat but I don’t know if I trust him enough to vote for him in the primary if Thompson, Hunter or Gingrich are running. I think Newt would have a hard time winning a national election. What I know of Hunter is very positive but can he win nationally? Thompson can beat Hillary and looks like he might be the real deal.
I think most likely his main thrust will be toward anti-business, blue-collar voters. Many on the right (even here on FR) are actually of this same persuasion even though there used to be many more fiscal conservative here; nowadays social issues far outweigh fiscal considerations.
That's why you have this current rah-rah atmosphere regarding Fred IMO.
Still undecided as to my vote and will be till probably 08 and I'm not saying I won't vote for Fred. But until Fred starts really talking, it's difficult to know what his proposals will be for President.
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.