Fred Thompson's appearance on Fox News Sunday a few weeks ago has re-energized the Right in a way that no one else in the race has come close to doing.
It seems as though the movement to draft Fred Thompson into the 2008 presidential race is gaining steam. The former Tennessee senator, lawyer and actor’s appearance on Fox News Sunday a few weeks ago has re-energized the Right in a way that no one else in the race has come close to doing. Why? Because he is truly one of us and because he can win.
Think of the assets touted by Rudy Giuliani’s followers; that he’s a tax-cutting, small government, fiscal conservative who’s tough on crime and terrorism. Thompson is all of these, plus he is free of the liberal baggage that front-running Rudy drags around like a ball and chain while campaigning in the red states.
Although Mitt Romney and Rudy make promises about nominating originalist justices to the Supreme Court, Thompson actually has practical experience, having been named by President Bush to shepherd John Roberts through the minefield that is the modern nomination process. He succeeded spectacularly, securing 78 votes while peeling off half of Senate Democrats in favor of Roberts’ confirmation.
While his views on illegal immigration are a bit vague, Thompson is steadfastly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, pro-traditional marriage and pro-choice in matters of school vouchers. In short, he is at least as conservative as Ronald Reagan, and, given the Gipper’s record on immigration, maybe even more so.
About the only concrete objection conservatives share is Thompson’s support of the noxious Campaign Finance Reform bill of his good buddy John McCain. In fact, rumor has it that his possible candidacy is contingent on the faltering of McCain’s. A hint could be in his evolving ideas about CFR: "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."
As far as the crowd who will vote for anyone who can beat Mrs. Bill Clinton, consider the following: Which is more likely, that the extremely polarizing Hillary can appeal to red state NASCAR dads, or that TV and movie star Thompson — with his deep voice and folksy, reassuring, Reagan-like manner — can woo the ever-anxious, blue state soccer moms? Let’s face it; the man is a 6'5 tower of walking gravitas whose rugged, rural demeanor will have the ladies swooning from coast to coast.
Of course, we will soon be hearing from the mainstream media that he is “only an actor” and that some of his acting took place on the taxpayer’s nickel; although most of his work on Law & Order in the final year of his term took place during the Labor Day recess. Unlike say, John F. Kerry who missed two-thirds of Senate roll call votes while out on the hustings in 2004.
Perhaps the most attractive thing about a possible Thompson run is that he doesn’t give the impression that he thirsts for the job like a fish for water and doesn’t seem particularly rushed into seeking it; he playfully hints that he might even wait until October to declare his intentions. He puts his presidential aspirations this way: “One advantage you have in not, you know, having this as lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world.”
This refreshing attitude was evident when he recently tackled that sacred cow of pacifism, Mahatma Gandhi. Subbing on the Paul Harvey Show, he pointed out that during World War II, Gandhi urged the British people to surrender to the Nazis and later opined that the Jews “should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. Collective suicide would have been heroism.” Thompson concluded:
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When Americans think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Gandhi probably wouldn't approve, but I can live with that.
And if that’s not enough to get you excited about the hunt for a Fred October, consider this from a John Fund interview in the Wall Street Journal: “So how would he campaign against Democratic millionaires he used to serve in the Senate with, such as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? He smiles and says he has plenty of zingers and points he would make but it's premature to discuss them.”
Count me in as a "Fredhead", but… what we consider Guiliani's "liberal baggage" might appear to be assets to Republican Party apparatchiks and those enamored of "reaching out" and "building bridges" to the "less ideologically rigid" independents and moderates. To a certain (how large?) segment, the enthusiastic support of social conservatives tars Mr. Thompson as "candidate of the far right".
"While his views on illegal immigration are a bit vague…"
I'll just wait for him to firm up those views, since for 2008, those are the only views I care passionately about. If the GOP standard-bearer doesn't adamantly and credibly oppose all illegal immigration, and also seek to limit legal immigration, I'll vote for a third-party candidate who does.
I was reading blogs a few days ago when I happened upon the 'Fred Mania' stuff. My first thought was "Fred who?". I had to google him to find out. "Oh, that guy from Law and Order". It didn't tell me much, but I at least could put a face to the name.
My problem, as so many other conservatives have, is that there isn't really a well-known TRUE conservative in the race. These are the impressions I have:
McCain – Poster boy for the term RINO. When the liberal press calls a conservative a "maverick", they mean that sometimes he does what they approve of. McCain-Feingold comes to mind here for some odd reason.
Guiliani – Wanted to like him and I do, but… face it folks, while he cleaned up NY with his toughness, he's at heart a social liberal (abortion, illegal immigration and some other issues too, I think). While some point to his straightening out of fiscal matters while in NY, it occurred to me that this wouldn't be his job as POTUS. You might as well say he makes a mean Reuben sandwich. That's nice, but not terribly relevant to being president.
Romney- Is known for his great fiscal responsibilities in Mass. Same thing as Guiliani. So what? If they need to replace the chairman of the federal reserve, then fine, he and Guiliani can battle it out for the post. Mitt seems to have a problem deciding what he believes about social policy. Isn't this the guy who had 2 changes of heart on abortion? I hear the sound of flip-flops already.
Gingrich – Lot's of people hoping Newt enters the race. Conservatives will like him, but he's got too much baggage. His name doesn't bring up good images with people other than conservatives. Right or wrong, regular people who don't follow politics a whole lot will probably remember the Contract with America and the government strike. Since the lib media decided that the CwA was a lie and the strike was Newt's fault, I don't see a lot of good memories for those folks we call swing voters.
Brownback, Tancredo, etc.- These guys can't break out of the pack. They have zero shot at catching up to Romney and Guiliani. They can't seem to get buzz with a six-pack and a bottle of tequila. Romney seems to have the same problem, but I don't know why.
Back to Fred… The more I read about what he believes, the more I like him. I didn't know he represented Tenn. and the fact that I didn't know means (to me, anyway) that he did his damn job. Oh, that we had more of THOSE in Congress.
He has all the conservative views you could want. I hear the point about his illegal immigration views being 'vague', but that's because he has said that he doesn't have the complete answer. HOWEVER, he did say that we need the borders secured first (hallelujah!), then we can deal with the other problems. His view wasn't terribly explicit, but it certainly isn't vague.
Now I find myself hoping he runs. While he may not be the perfect candidate, he sure looks that way compared to the rest of the current field.
We needed a Reagan when the Soviets were the threat. We need someone like Reagan now that we have the threat of Islam. I think Fred is as close as we can hope to get.
Didn't Reagan manage to make an impact in fiscal matters? If Guiliani's "liberal baggage" means
that he's more electable in the general election, maybe a Guiliani/Thompson ticket could be the
path to another 16 years of Republican occupancy in the WH?
If they are both on the ticket, it should be Thompson/Giuliani.
That might be my preference as well, but what the ticket "should" be will be decided by the voters in he primary contests, so let's hope Fred gets out there and makes his case. Any ticket with Fred anywhere on it is better than any ticket without him.
I do have a little difficulty picturing Rudy accepting the #2 slot. If Fred decisively clinches the nomination,and Giuliani declined a VP offer, who would make the best running mate? Think like a Party-man here… winning in November versus one's own personal concept of ideological purity.