Posted on 10/22/2007 5:39:51 PM PDT by americanophile
After seven years of suffering through the mangled articulations of President George W. Bush, and the juvenile, curiously incongruent attitude that has him joking at wartime press conferences, many in the GOP are looking for a savvy and articulate leader.
The “Bush fatigue” as it is commonly referred to is not simply confined to liberals and the international community. In candid moments most dedicated Republicans will admit to the palpable discomfort experienced by his own supporters while watching a Bush press conference.
Bush’s failure to be able to effectively articulate even the simplest of positions has left his party and the Nation without an effective advocate on a host of critical issues. Indeed, even Bush’s most impressive domestic achievement - an economy that has enjoyed nearly 6 years of uninterrupted growth is known by critics as ”the greatest story never told.”
There is no doubt that the mainstream media has consistently opposed and undermined the President from day one, but given the proclivities of the press, this is entirely unsurprising. That a modern White House communications team could be this ineffective despite nearly seven years of practice and a press office once headed by someone with as much media experience as Tony Snow is further evidence of the centrality and importance of any president’s ability to articulate a clear vision.
Given this reality, and the real sense of fatigue, Fred Thompson’s folksy demeanor and simplistic explanation of policy sound far too familiar to imbue him with the quality of competence or the sense of change that most voters are desperately seeking.
Indeed, Thompson’s single best retort in Sunday’s debate came in response to a question about his own widely perceived laziness. While his supporters cheered him, the reality is that effective presidential campaigns are not won by playing defense.
Despite the hopes of many, Thompson is clearly outmatched by several of his articulate GOP rivals, and his country tune out of place with an audience itching for an effective voice for conservatism.
Hire them to build the fence on their side.
We both want the same thing. Every leader is not always recognizable. Did everyone know, without a doubt, that Regan was a leader? The very same allegations of laziness and slowness were used against him as well. There is still plenty of time...don't let the MSM push you into a decision at this point. You may not make up your mind until the primary date in your state. Quite frankly, I have never lived in a state where my primary vote meant anything. It has always been decided long before it got to where I was at that time.
B T T T
Bingo!
Ever since Lurch though, I hate the word nuance....he was such a nuancy boy.
Wrong. Sorry. I have tremendous respect for Admiral Stockdale for his unbelievable leadership and impeccable demeanor while in the Hanoi Hilton.......
.....but he didn’t strike the world as an intellectual giant in that campaign. Brave, heroic........but had NO business being involved in national politics. He proved it that evening.
I think we are in agreement, and I think Fred did well with significant improvement over the first debate. Most reports on the debates seem to agree with that. I’m hoping Fred or Romney will win the nomination. I know many here don’t like Romney, but I believe he’ll follow through on his conservative intentions if he should win.
It’s tough on the politicians to run in an extremely liberal state, and then run for national office. Clinton and Gore sang different tunes when running for statewide office in Arkansas and Tennessee than while running for president and VP. As much as some might want perfect consistency, the jump from state to national campaigns often creates these situtuations. And GHWB pro-choice until he ran with Reagan.
But we have to enforce our immigration laws or just open the borders. And we will have to say NO to far more who want to come here than we say yes to, especially from south-of-the- border.
I like Fred and support his candidacy but this author has hit on an important truth here.
To begin with, Fred has 30 IQ points on W. I’m not saying the Preisdent is a fool. He is definitely smarter than either Al Gore or John Kerry. But he has never had a questing mind. He won’t or can’t do the hard work of figuring out a coherent view of how the government should relate to its citizens and to the rest of the world. Fred, by contrast,has done that work. He can explain himself clearly because he understands the big things clearly. W can’t because he doesn’t.
Fred came from nowhere to the top of three professions on his wits alone. W’s life experience was dramatically different, and it produced a politician with much less depth. The comparison is inane.
His articulate opponents? These would be the opponents who admitted to wanting to consult with their lawyers before making military decisions or those who have been in the race since early Spring but can’t run a ground campaign good enough to get above 1%?
With opponents “articulating” like that, Fred comes off less like GWB and more like Reagan at Point du Hoc.
Alas, Huckabee is very pro-amnesty and clueless when it comes to the economy and taxes -— basically a social conservative and an economic liberal.
But he is a great speaker.
“Bragging that you were married in a shotgun wedding at seventeen . . . suggests the stereotype southern white trash to me.”
Hmm, to me it shows character at an early age, and stepping up to do the right thing.
Many weaker and more selfish people would have sought an abortion.
Character can seldom be taught.
They said the same thing about Winston Churchill — too old, too fat, too ugly, not quick on his feet.
Worked out OK.
With all due respect to your impassioned defense of Fred, everything you've written is just conjecture.
“...I don’t seem to recall anyone claiming Churchill was slow.”
Who said anyone was “slow”? Speaking slowly and being “slow” are distinct -— although Yankees tend to think people from the South are “slow” because their speech is deceptively slow.
On to the point, Churchill spoke very slowly and deliberately -— and, in fact had a speech defect -— and was critized for it by the know-it-alls in the media at the time — although in hindsight, his style was very effective.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050116/ai_n9628016
Fred’s acumen and legal intellect are greater than all the other so-called ‘first tier’ candidates combined.
Granted, what I wrote was conclusory. It was a short post not a parallel biography. But I doubt anyone would seriously want to argue with my conclusion. If you do, bring it on. The word “conjecture,” by the way, doesn’t constitute an argument.
Granted, what I wrote was conclusory. It was a short post not a parallel biography. But I doubt anyone would seriously want to argue with my conclusion. If you do, bring it on. The word “conjecture,” by the way, doesn’t constitute an argument."
It is self-evidently conjecture, so I felt little need to elaborate, but very well:
Do you have empirical data that can prove that Thompson “has 30 IQ points on W”? No, of course you don’t, so it’s conjecture. You claim that Bush is “definitely smarter” than either Al Gore or John Kerry. I think Bush’s judgment is better, but who is to say who is smarter and what empirical proof can you offer? None. Again …conjecture. “he has never had a questing mind.” Do you know the President personally…since youth? I very much doubt it, so again, absent proof…conjecture. “He won’t or can’t do the hard work of figuring out a coherent view of how the government should relate to its citizens and to the rest of the world.” I am to assume that in addition to knowing him since childhood, you’ve also spent time at the White House and are aware of his inability or unwillingness on these issues? Conjecture. “Fred, by contrast,has done that work.” My author searches haven’t turned up any geopolitical treatises by Fred, and without knowing him personally or having seen his "hard work" on speeches or articles it is very difficult to know (like any politician) how much of what he says is the product of his own labor or thought processes. So, unless you are also intimately familiar with Fred Thompson, it’s again, conjecture. “He can explain himself clearly because he understands the big things clearly.” I happen to think he does a mediocre job of explaining his positions, so the first portion of the statement is pure opinion (some might say conjecture), while the second is again pure conjecture, unless of course you are intimately familiar with Fred’s comprehension levels, which I doubt. “W can’t because he doesn’t." Lastly, again unless you have intimate knowledge of the President’s mental abilities, this is alas… conjecture.
This is ridiculous conjecture. I’m all for enthusiasm, but this stuff sounds like paper hanging.
I’ll take ‘folksiness’ over windsurfing anyday...
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.