Posted on 08/20/2007 2:37:30 PM PDT by hardback
By MICHAEL COLLINS Scripps Howard News Service Monday, August 20, 2007
He's an actor-turned-politician in the mode of Ronald Reagan, someone who is 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 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 & 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 ideology for a minute and focus on the other trait that he shares with the last actor who was elected president -- that is, 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, Tenn.
"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 kinds 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 the State University of New York, 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 was also the eternal optimist and, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, used his speeches to raise people's spirits, said David 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 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."
FredT isn't one of the many.
Now, if your a Romney supporter or Mitt himself, things are definitely Reagan-like. Romney was adamantly pro-choice for 30+ years, just like his hero. Go ahead, ask him.
GO FRed GO!
Reagan was out of acting long before he became president. No matter how good Fred might make people feel, it bothers me that he is an actor so recently, as matter of a fact, as I write this. I think it’s a weakness, where with Reagan it wasn’t, because it was only something that he used to do. That’s a big difference right there. With Thompson, it would be very easy to exploit this fact. With Reagan, they were just grabbing at straws, because it was part of his distant past. I don’t like it that Fred went back to acting after he got out of politics. It’s a red flag to me.
The man is scared of the responsibility. You can’t have that in your leader. These other world stagers are playing for keeps. He’s reluctant because this is no joke.
While I remain suspect about Fred's desire to serve, nothing could be further than the truth about a comparison between Reagan and Romney...for one thing, Reagan at least once wore the uniform of his country. Romney, IMO, has a lot more in common with Bill Clinton in that he is very good at embellishing his record, is a "safe and legal" abortion advocate and has unabashedly courted the gay community to troll for votes.
I don’t have a problem with people who have seen the light, what difference does it make if someone used to believe abortion was ok at one time and now doesn’t believe in it? Ask any pastor of any conservative congretgation and he will tell you a lot of the women who have have actually had abortions who know realize it was wrong. What would you rather, that someone NEVER realizes the truth, that seems twisted. And plus, I want to know, under what context exactly were you led to believe that Romney used to believe in it? Was it that he thought it was a private decision? If so, that’s not the same thing as supporting something. There are many different levels of support, and I seriously doubt that he was a rapid supporter.
When you're closer to being a liberal than a conservative, governing a leftwing cesspool like Massachusetts comes easy.
He reminds me more of Sean Connery than Ronald Reagan! :0)
Many Compare Fred Thompson to Reagan
wishful thinking by koolaid drinking gopers.............
it is pointless to compare, different time, differnt world.
Romney certainly has his flaws, but the comparison to Clinton is way over the top.
When Romney decided that fabricating falsehoods about Reagan was a good idea to cover his 30+ years of bad judgment in supporting Roe v Wade, he crossed the line.
Anyone here actually think that Reagan then could compare to Reagan as we see him now? LOL
There will never be another Reagan, or Lincoln or Washington, or JFK, or please God, Devil or Sun another Clinton! LOL
I believe Fred will slay the Hildabeast, and strengthen conservatism.
I remember Fred bailing on the conservative party. When he had a chance to stand up to the Clintons he chose instead to walk away. He caved and his voting record along with a lack of cajones backs it up.
Based on what exactly?
How did Romney fabricate falsehoods about Reagan? And how do you know it was deliberate? We need to be careful about being so subjective, we need to be more concrete. We shouldn’t throw this election away over misunderstandings, which is what this sounds like more than anything. I find it very hard to believe that a Mormon was a rapid supporter of abortions until recently, it just doesn’t make sense. Mormons are not like Catholics, generally, when people are Mormon, it’s because they have very traditional family values. Please don’t ask me why, it’s just something I’ve noticed. By contrast, Catholics are entirely different. They can range anywhere from very traditional to admitting they don’t even believe in God and be very liberal to-boot!
I don’t know about Thompson, but at the Iowa straw poll in Ames, Duncan Hunter very forcefully said that he would never apologize for America. Maybe that’s who you’re thinking of. Maybe that’s who you should be thinking of. ;-)
“Fred is Heads Above anybody we have running now.”
Well, I suppose if you support McCain/Feingold and campaign finance reform, you might think so.
That is funny. The second question gives credence to the first question. Two questions going in opposite directions, leading back to the the same answer.
I touched on it in #21. On Fox News Sunday, the August 12th 2007 edition, Romney stated that Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice". Everyone knows that Reagan was adamantly pro-life. He never supported Roe v Wade or abortion on demand. Romney is an intelligent man. Why would be make such a remark we all know isn't true? If it was a simple mistake, he could have apologized. Instead, Romney has stood by that statement. Therefore, he must have said it with an a specific purpose in mind. IMO, Romney made that outrageous remark to lend cover to his pro-abortion record that goes back to the early 1970`s. Mitt figures people will buy it. If Reagan was once pro-choice and he got elected POTUS, why can't I be pro-choice too and run for POTUS. The rationale is crystal clear.
Btw, this has nothing to do with his religious affiliation. It has to do with Mitt not being a conservative.
Can you imagine the uproar if Fred Thompson waited until November 13 to announce?
The comparason could be apt. He does have Reagan’s charisma. Hopefully, if elected, he’ll also have Reagan’s vision.
The primaries are supposed to be a vetting process wherein the candidate proves he/she has the stamina, appeal, background, experience, and character to be president. The candidate is supposed to be examined, challenged, and thoroughly scrutinized by the press and voters. If the candidate is unwilling to go through that process, and Thompson apparently isn’t, he/she shouldn’t be running.
I see Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama, and the rest willing to stand up and take it. Where’s Fred??? Cold feet??? Lacking the stomach and the stamina for the campaign??? Republicans shouldn’t buy a pig in a poke. Fish or cut bait, Thompson. Pee or get off the pot.
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.