http://Vets4Fred.net It's time for Vets to sign up!
Posted on 08/18/2007 9:21:51 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON — He’s an actor-turned-politician in the mode of Ronald Reagan, someone who’s at ease in front of a camera or a crowd, a man who can charm an audience with a folksy tale or a clever turn of phrase.
But is Fred Thompson truly Reaganesque?
Reagan was, after all, the Great Communicator, a leader so skilled at connecting with his subjects that he has become the standard by which all would-be presidents are judged.
Thompson’s admirers, elated over his expected decision to seek the Republican nomination for president, already are hailing his candidacy as the second coming of Reagan.
The former Tennessee senator, an ex-prosecutor who plays a stern district attorney on the television crime drama “Law and Order,” is expected to officially enter the race sometime next month.
Like Reagan, Thompson believes in smaller government and fiscal conservatism.
But let’s put aside politics for a minute and focus on the other trait he shares with the last actor who was elected president — an innate ability to communicate, to tell a story in a way that captures the public’s attention.
Both men come across as strong, authoritative figures on stage and screen. Their speaking voices are fluent and resonant, though vastly different. Reagan’s was smooth, mellow, grandfatherly. Thompson’s is deep, gruff, sometimes gravelly. Both men were blessed with the gift of gab and a flair for spinning a good yarn.
But is Thompson Reagan’s equal as a communicator?
Thompson does have the Reagan touch, said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
“Thompson is at ease with the camera,” Geer said. “Certainly, Reagan was at ease with the camera. Second, at least from what I can see so far, Thompson, when he decides to be critical of somebody or question them, he does it in a way that has less of an edge to it than a lot of current politicians, and I think that is also Reaganesque.’’
In some ways, though, Thompson seems less like “the Gipper” and more like Sheriff Andy Taylor of the old “Andy Griffith Show,” Geer said.
“He has this kind of disarming quality about him, where he tries to use folksy kind of metaphors just like Taylor did,” Geer said. “But at the same time, Taylor was the most wily (man) in that entire city. Thompson is very smart as well, so he has this old country boy kind of routine that I think serves him pretty well.”
Clark Judge, who worked as a speechwriter for Reagan in the White House, also sees a little of Reagan in Thompson.
“Thompson has a very solid, reassuring presence at a podium and before a camera,” Judge said. “He comes across as someone you trust a lot. Look at him on some of his TV speeches, responses to State of the Union, that sort of thing. He’s very much someone who’s talking to you.”
One of Reagan’s greatest attributes, at least as an orator, was his ability to take written text and give it additional meaning, Judge said.
“For me, it was very, very different listening to Reagan before I started working for him and then listening to him when he was delivering text that I had actually written,” Judge said. “He would find meaning in the text and bring it out through his delivery.”
Judge said he doesn’t know whether Thompson has that talent because he’s never written for him. But, “Thompson is a very effective communicator, which is one reason he has moved up so fast (in the polls),” Judge said.
Others are less impressed by Thompson’s oratory skills.
“He’s no Reagan,” said John Kares Smith, a professor of communications at State University of New York in Oswego, an expert in presidential and political communication and a devotee of Thompson’s television show.
“Ronald Reagan had an ability and a real underestimated skill of being able to touch very deep-held American myths and beliefs,” Smith said. “When he would talk about the city on the hill, he really could resonate with our puritan past. Fred Thompson, I don’t think he has any of those skills at all.”
Thompson “just doesn’t connect the way Reagan did,” Smith said. “Reagan had maybe three ideas, and everybody knew what they were. He knew people. He had a wonderful sense of humor. Fred Thompson is not known for his humor.”
Reagan also was the eternal optimist and, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, used his speeches to raise people’s spirits, said David E. Johnson, a political consultant in Atlanta who worked on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1988.
“That was Reagan’s whole persona,” Johnson said. “That’s what his greatness was, very much like Jack Kennedy. Thompson, on the other hand, is more a ‘just the facts’ type of person. He doesn’t lift to the oratorical lengths that Reagan or Roosevelt did or even Bill Clinton did.”
As evidence, Johnson cited a speech that Thompson gave to a group of Republicans last May. Some complained that the address, Thompson’s first as a prospective presidential candidate, was downright disappointing.
But whether Thompson can live up to the Reagan legend may be beside the point. He doesn’t have to be a Reagan clone to win the GOP nomination, Judge said.
“The real issue,” Judge said, “is how he compares to the rest of the field.”
I find Fred Thompson to be a good change of pace. Both from what we've had in the last 6-1/2 years and the eight years prior to that. He may not run around agitating everyone, causing a ruckus like Keyes does, but Thompson is a conservative. After the dog days of August are over, we'll be getting down to the nitty gritty. Neither of us like any of the top tier candidates, Giuliani, Romney or McCain. FredT is a good alternative.
If Giuliani gets the nomination, we'll both be voting for a third party candidate. And the GOP will be on the verge of destruction.
You’re not being realistic.
Good night.
Definitely a point of agreement.
Not that he's the only danger...
And I think you’re being short-sighted.
Good night.
I like Thompson okay. He can deliever one heck of a speech. He has stumbled on several interviews, though.
That said, I have serious reservations about him. I’m not keen on a guy who claims he’s never wanted to be a President and would not accept any vice presidency. It smacks me of a smugness that is wholly unbecoming. Then there’s this nonsense about him refusing to run, participate in the debates, and appear in Iowa and New Hampshire to guild grassroots.
There’s also the almost certainty that his cancer is going to come out of remission in short order. In a French study of the same type of cancer, 4 of 47 were dead in 7 years. Only 1 in 7 was in remission at that point. And these were people treated with chemo. Fred Thompson’s cancer did not go into remission after chemo. He also needed radiation.
I don’t like the idea of our side being represented by a guy who is more than likely to have some very serious complications with his health in the near future.
I also don’t like the idea of a guy who opposes tort reform.
A decision about border security is different than a decision about abortion, for example. There are different factors to consider and decide upon -- or laugh about, if one is so inclined. ;-)
If this is important to you, please quote both instances -- and tell us your point.
Could be.
And Elvis could lurk behind it all. ;-)
It was post 38 and 41 that I posted to you, aren’t you even reading our posts to you before you throw out new posts back?
Your last sentance is an exact quote of Fred Thompson himself...imagine that.
Can anyone live up to the expectations?
http://Vets4Fred.net It's time for Vets to sign up!
I dont think Newts ego would permit him to stoop to that position...
MARKER
Why? Do you think the American people want their security put at risk by a president who does not take the threat of radical Islam seriously? Do you think they want more open borders? Do you think they want their taxes raised and recession? Do you think they like high energy prices and agree with the environmental wackos that we can't produce and refine more of our own oil?
Please give me one reason why anyone with half a brain would want a Democrat in the WH.
And help allow Hillary in the WH? Shame on you.
Switch the order, and I'm willing to hop on board. We need Romney's executive leadership at the helm.
Not if the Hildebeast gets the nomination. In a national contest, once people are truly paying attention, I believe any of the Republican hopefuls other than McCain would beat her. Her negatives are incredibly high and her baggage and history is vast. Bill Clinton could pull it off, but not the wife.
Notice that people here don't even post those pictures when praising him, it is almost always the pictures taken a few years ago.
I can't post pictures, but if someone could post the three candidates, from last week, side by side, you will see what I mean. I really hope if Fred does do the debates next month, that he hires a really good make up artist, because if he doesn't I don't think his "communication skills" will make a huge impression on undecided voters.
There are many facets to President Reagan, but this one is key to his political appeal. I'm uncertain if FDT has similar skills, I've not seen enough from him yet to know.
Regardless, there was only one Reagan, just like there has only been one Lincoln or one Washington. Looking back, it was as though each of these individuals had been groomed by their experiences to become president at a crucial moment in American history. They are all leaders, the right man for the moment, and in many ways GWB has shown similar traits.
There is a "bad (crescent) moon risin'" and the next president will have to be able to express to a disinterested and war weary (thanks MSM) America what is at stake.
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.