Posted on 11/16/2007 5:45:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s been a great week for Fred Thompson, with the National Right To Life Committee endorsement coming right as Rudy Giuliani’s honeymoon is cut short by his old friend’s sleazy indictment. But when it comes to the Hollywood actor-turned-late-campaign-bloomer, still second in some national polls, you have to ask just what exactly does good news mean to Big Fred?
The heavyweight pro-life seal of approval, which is not only the biggest moment yet for the Thompson campaign but is one of the most critical endorsements of the entire GOP primary process, was released with impeccable timing for Thompson, directly after Giuliani’s nod from Christian High Commander Pat Robertson. Yet it didn’t inspire much enthusiasm or even relief from the former senator from Tennessee. “I just think that it would mean that those who look at these matters the most and consider them the most carefully know my record and know me and would be supportive of me,” he said.
Perhaps he momentarily forgot that fellow candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee’s anti-abortion position is as strong as his, if not stronger, and that unlike Thompson, Huckabee never did lobbying work on behalf of an abortion rights group. Or perhaps for Thompson, gratitude and politics don’t mix.
Is Fred Thompson, who some hoped would be the second coming of Ronald Reagan, the first Zen master of presidential politics who can authentically combine confidence with resignation? Some days from the look on his face you might think he’s been taken hostage. Compared to the rest of the field, his trips are fewer, his remarks shorter and his exuberance on the trail, well, it’s in check. He created a go-down-in-campaign-history moment recently by having to ask a small audience for applause in Iowa. And of course there has been little interruption to the constant stream of bad stories about the inner sanctum at Team Fred, the former coffee klatch that was once so small and spontaneous but is now an official, wildly dysfunctional presidential campaign.
But to the “so be it” candidate, the exact words he has uttered numerous times when asked about the final outcome, it’s all good. He’s doing things his way. Thompson’s running as a common-sense conservative, despite the fact that his feisty federalism tends to get in the way of conservative voters opening their collective arms to him. And unlike Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, Thompson is running as a non flip-flopper. Recently he said he likes having a record to run on because, “people know where you stand ... and then it’s in the hands of the Lord and the people, and that’s exactly the way it ought to be, and that will satisfy me.”
There is something so attractive about that cool-cat routine; it’s great that Thompson isn’t drooling over the presidency. It’s as if Fred has the big picture and sees more from up there at 6-foot-6 than Mitt or Rudy ever could down here. Or he doesn’t care, but that’s the point — we don’t know what he’s thinking. Fred is that guy (or girl) in high school that just wasn’t that interested in us, no matter how hard we tried to ignore him.
Ah. Would that Thompson’s distance from the ludicrous game of presidential primary sweepstakes actually represent maturity, independence and more concern for solutions than political power, we could all throw our support behind him today. Don’t we crave someone who gets the joke, refuses to be trapped by formulas, and can’t fake it through the begging and buttering-up required to land the job of Most Powerful Person in the world?
Unfortunately wrapped inside the vulgar packaging of would-be presidents must exist some leadership that Thompson hasn’t exhibited. It doesn’t come just from policy initiatives but is apparent to voters who watch and listen closely to the candidates. They know in a strange way there is leadership in actually wanting the job. Being president is the ultimate thankless job — a minefield of bad surprises and grind of steady criticism. A reluctant candidate, or the person whose candidacy was someone else’s idea, is simply not ready to take the pain. Just ask George W. Bush.
To his credit, while he lacks the lust his rivals bring to the table, Thompson’s no lightweight. This week he proposed a comprehensive military expansion and has also dared to push for tax code overhauls to address toxic political problems like Social Security and Medicare. Bold though he may be, he doesn’t always have a way with words. He recently offered up this sentence about his willingness to occasionally journey the road less traveled, which he thinks makes him a “credible” candidate: “That I’m not just coming up with sound bites that sound good to people that are safe and then plan on doing something else once I get in.”
It’s hard to imagine Thompson “in” the White House. And it’s hard to imagine if Thompson is really trying to be our next president, or if he is counting the days until he withdraws and, I predict, endorses Sen. John McCain. Even he may not know, but as of a few days ago he was insisting to ABC News, “Not to brag, but I’m the only so-called front-tier running nationwide here that’s never lost an election and I don’t intend to lose this one either!”
So be it.
We could do MUCH WORSE than Fred. Much.
I don't WANT somebody in office who has lusted after the presidency since childhood. You saw what that got us with Slick Willie . . . . and we'd get the same with Her Heinous.
IIRC, Rudy told everyone in high school that he would be the first Italian-American president.
Who the hell is A. B. Stoddard, and what does he have to make him so pompous and condescending?
Having asked this questioned, I googled for an answer, and find that I should have said “she” when I asked that question.
A. B. Stoddard
A.B. Stoddard, who has covered the U.S. House and Senate since 1994, rejoined The Hill as associate editor in 2006. She was a congressional reporter for The Hill from 1995-1999.
Before returning to The Hill, Stoddard was a freelance writer and a contributing editor for Congressional Quarterly, where she wrote a column on the media. She also wrote for The Boston Globe and The Federal Paper.
At ABC News, Stoddard covered the U.S. Senate as a producer for World News Tonight and all other ABC News network broadcasts from 1999-2002. She contributed on-air work to network webcasts and radio broadcasts in addition to writing a weekly column for ABCNews.com.
A graduate of Connecticut College, Stoddard began her career in 1991 as a reporter for the Potomac News in Northern Virginia.
Her television credits include regular appearances on MSNBC and FOX News Channel, as well as appearances on CNN, PBS, HBO, BBC and Court TV.
Stoddard is a regular contributor to The Hill’s pundits blog.
Well, I don’t know how often she appears on Fox, but every other outfit she has worked for is liberal, including the infamous Boston Glob, MSNBC, ABC, and PBS.
So, now we know where she’s coming from.
His liberal leanings plus his scandalous private life pretty much put him out of the running for me (we NEED another tomcat soap opera in the White House????) but what really bother me are his authoritarian inclinations, which he has shown over and over again. And his position on gun control (that's MY third rail).
Well we have the cross dressing abortionist, the flip-flopping phlegm phlagm man, Captain Queeg with grey hair, and the Arkansas Fellow Traveler......yup, I would agree.
Whining won't work with Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, or Putin.
Feminism is abject selfishness ... the feminists will sacrifice any female so long as the ‘movement’ is protected on issues of killing the alive unborn without restriction. The Rodham-rodent doesn’t care a whit about women, it’s their votes that she lusts after. There are no people alive that the Hillary wouldn’t sacrifice for her empowerment, as she proved with her defense of slaughtering alive unborn during the Senate partial birth abortion debate against Rick Santorum.
Was that at the prom with his date Bruce?
Agree 100%.
I like Fred because he doesn’t “lust” for the office of President. Many have said he was slow getting out of the gate, I say he was putting together a platform that would reflect his beliefs and the beliefs of most Americans, not just dumping ideas on us based on daily polls. His attitude is basically: here are my ideas, elect me if you like them … if not, I will go fish’n, was headed that way anyhow.
George Washington had a similar philosophy: I will not be your king but if you like my ideas for this country, elect me as your president and I will do my best … if not, I will go fish’n, was headed that way anyhow.
I would rather have someone who doesn’t necessarily want to be POTUS, but would take on this thankless job if asked by the American people.
They must be insane. Sacrificing everything to kill little babies . . . . the mind boggles.
While this author hates FDT all right, she has hit on an important point -- the idea of not wanting something so badly that you will do ANYTHING to get it IS rather zen-like.
GW could afford to be aloof. They DID want him to be king. He had just won the revolution. He had a lot going for him. It's tough to play hard to get when they don't want you.
I liked the idea of Thompson, but he does not show well on TV and his stump speeches are not gaining him traction. The itch to be POTUS is not there and the people feel it. He is no longer an easy TV sell. Thompson, 10 years earlier, would have been a force if he had ambition to do it, but now he looks too old and the cancer has sapped him. His positions are worthy of a look however. He needs some traction in a hurry.
What sacres me is how many Americans have a total fantasy perspective of the Rodham-rodent ... voters must see the real Hatellary or she will be running this nation in ‘09. AND THAT SCARES THE BEGEEBERS OUT OF ME for my grandkids!
What swill!
That hasn't gotten us good results.
It's still early, FRiend. Look at the polls here at FR and read some other conservative sites. Many of us DO want him and we worked on DRAFTING him earlier this year. Just because you don't like Fred for some unknown reason, don't try and speak for conservatives as a whole!
Dont know if it means something but my wife’s family (Die hard Dems) would love to see Rudy as their opponent. However mentoning a Hilda vs Fred has become fighting words. I thought their thinking was a Rudy win would not be that bad but they seem to be really scared Fred could actually win.
Most pundits are suggesting that Fred is not trying hard enough, this person says he is trying to hard … can’t have it both ways.
Swill? Hardly. These charts show trend lines derived from all polls of significance. Fred's trend lines are little blue frowns. Quite appropriate.
Meanwhile, bigots rage and gnash their teeth over Mitt. Why? Because he's been willing to fully do what Fred is only half-committed to doing: working hard for the nomination.
What they are really scared of is not that Fred will win but that they, for the first time in their lives, will feel compelled to cross the party lines and vote for Fred. Rudy and the beast are no different from each other. But they know Fred is a good honest man with bunches of integrity and they can't, in good concience, vote for Hill if Fred is her opponent.
You and Spiff are the same person, am I right?
LOL at your tag line!
Comparing Fred’s reluctant pose to George Washington is beyond ridiculous.
Not agreeing with your moral equivalence between Rudy and the Beast but Fred is the candidate that contrasts best with her if it came to them.
And that frightens the liberal/left media as much as anything because they seek to muddle that contrast and eliminate the liberal/left agenda from the discussion wherever possible.
That’s how they always plan to win. This election will be no different.
Many chose to overlook the fact that Fred began a deliberate weight loss and exercise program prior to announcing his candidacy. Instead, his change in appearance has been widely and erroneously blamed on his cancer. But people often look somewhat gaunt in the face after recent weight loss, even healthy weight loss. I have noticed that his body seems to be adjusting to the loss of weight and his face is slowly filling out again as is usually the case over time. He says he’s healthy and I believe him. You’d have to be a fool to take on a run for President if you were not healthy and I don’t think Thompson is a fool.
Clones...
I don’t know if it means anything, either, but when any of my wide circle of very liberal friends asks me who I think will be the Republican nominee, and when I reply “Fred Thompson,” they look at me kind of funny and change the subject.
And it’s not because they don’t like arguing politics. They LOVE arguing politics.
I know people that have gone to his speeches. Perhaps he is refined them now, but out the box I assure that was their reaction to them. Not swill.
“Meanwhile, bigots rage and gnash their teeth over Mitt”
You are using code words to bash Christians.
.
Because they are infected with an advanced stage of syphlis or liberalism.
“Meanwhile, bigots rage and gnash their teeth over Mitt. “
I am proud to be a bigot - I’m bigoted against racism for example. I’m also bigoted against atheists and jihadis winning at the presidential level. I also oppose those whose inspiration comes through peep stones.
A lot of us will not vote for Mitt if he wins the nomination. That’s what you get when you try and force someone down people’s throats.
He has absolutely no interest in politics until closer to the election. Period. Not interested AT all. "Plenty of time," he says.
He is also 6 foot 6, but somewhat younger than Fred (not much). And a typical soft-spoken "big stick" type Virginian.
FWIW, he is always picked for jury service. And he is always elected foreman. I think he's served 8 or 10 times now.
“A reluctant candidate, or the person whose candidacy was someone else’s idea, is simply not ready to take the pain. Just ask George W. Bush.”
Hmmmm.
I’m bigoted against flipflopping, medicine socializing, gun grabbing, abortion supporting, fake badge issuing, phony conservatives like Mitt Romney.
Her Imperiousness might as well own it.
Leni
I needed a barf alert for this one!
Why use the word ‘bigot’? I think that’s completely unfair for 95% of the FR people whom don’t support Romney.
I don’t like Mitt, because he’s changed far too much in such a short period of time. If he was what he says he is now, I wouldn’t find him hard to vote for...but I think it’s very unlikely he is all that.
Same style...especially the charts.
Yes, because like people of low intelligence everywhere, they hate what they fear.
I don't trust Romney, because his words now don't match up with his previous actions. In the absence of some huge, life-altering catastrophe, nobody changes their positions on so many basic political and moral issues in so short a period of time.
It makes me think of what they ask in court when somebody changes his story completely . . . "Are you lying now, or were you lying then?"
. . . I oughta read all the postings before I say something . . . it sounds like there’s an echo in here.
“It doesn’t come just from policy initiatives but is apparent to voters who watch and listen closely to the candidates. They know in a strange way there is leadership in actually wanting the job.”
Huh? Folks don’t think on that level. To his credit, and I haven’t been one to praise the man much, Thompson seems to be genuine in the attitude that his world won’t come crashing down around him if he loses.
To me, leadership is found in the one who most wants to serve others. This may well be Fred.
“And I’ll do it whether we win or lose.”
I’m still in the undecided camp, but I consider your attitude to be the correct one. Pick your person based upon your values and where the candidates stands.....then stick with them....win or lose.
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.