Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Fred Thompson: The Next Reagan?

I think Hugh Hewitt has the answer to that question:
One reason I suspect the Fred boom may be over before it has even really begun is the recognition that on the stump Fred will be seen as the southerner he is --slow, folksy, plain spoken. In a year when an anti-Bush may be needed, a Brookyln-born Mob-busting tough guy, or the hyper-intelligent, hyper-eloquent investment banker turnaround executive may emerge quickly as far more likely to be the "something completely different " that Reagan was in 1980 . . . .
I think that what excites the GOP base about Thompson (and that base is not enough to win a general election) is that he is a tough-talking Southerner. Well, we've had one of those for the last 6 years, and although "W" is not nearly as articulate as Fred, I wonder if the rest of the country wants a replay.

A lot of people also see Thompson as Arthur Branch, the D.A. on "Law and Order."

What I see is a man who served one full (and undistinguished) term in the U.S. Senate; who has never run anything other than his Senate office and committees; who voted for McCain-Feingold; who was McCain's 2000 presidential campaign co-chair; who is a protege of Howard Baker -- no conservative, he; and who had an American Conservative Union rating, in his final year in the Senate, of 86-- placing him in the same neighborhood as such conservative lions as Mike DeWine (83), Chuck Hagel (84), John McCain (84) Robert Bennett (88), Frank Murkowski (83) Charles Grassley (83) and Peter Fitzgerald (87).

I may be wrong, but I am not sure how well this candidate is is going to fare in the intense light of media and voter scrutiny -- which he has so far avoided.

We'll see.

Update: More at Evangelicals for Mitt.

And here's a more statesmanlike take from K-Lo:
Romney and Thompson will wind up in the same administration — one of them as president, the other as...something important and influential. It's a relatively fearless prediction because I'm not making any public bet on who comes out on top. But they strike me as leaders. I think they probably both get it — conservatism, the war, what's important in life (including life). And they both probably have the interest of the country seriously weighing on their minds. As do their families. They both strike me as good men who believe in a lot of the same things and neither is particularly keen on attacking the other. They both will have very good people who will work for them — and conservative people at that. If Romney and Thompson are what it comes down to for the GOP, that will be a good thing for America.
And Hugh Hewitt comments on whether Thompson is Reagan's heir:
Fred Thompson arrives with many on the sidelines whispering Reagan. Perhaps, but just perhaps. President Reagan was a Californian, not a southerner, an upbeat and sunny optimist who had spent 16 years on the chicken circuit helping the party, and having made one unsuccessful run for the GOP nomination. Few Republicans every thought to raise questions about Reagan’s fire in the belly.


Anonymous Peri said...

To learn the real reasons why Thompson inspires such fervor among his fans, just google "Corporal Lance Fielder." Hugh Hewitt is going to try and make his case for a Giuliani/Romney showdown, because he has a vested interest in one of the mentioned candidates and is quite confident of the outcome.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:45:00 PM  
Blogger The Hedgehog said...

Peri, I did Google that name and can't find anything that tells me much about Fred Thompson at all. Can you be more specific?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Southern Folksy? But you leave out one VERY important item.

Fred is a Conservative - federalism and small government.

Bush is not either of those as he is proving now.

So those statements were misleading - state ALL the facts. Recall that lies of omission are lies none the less.

Hugh has abandoned any pretense of reason in this campaign and has given himself over wholly to partisanship.

Anyone trusting Hugh on this, I have 2 words for you:

Harriet Myers.

Do your own research - and beware of the half-truths and omitted facts and out of context bashing that is done by the so-called "Evangelicals". Get all the facts before you make your mind up one way or another.

As for "Executive Experience", I guess that just running a law office isn't enough, right Abe Lincoln?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:47:00 PM  
Blogger The Hedgehog said...

Anonymous, I'd like to know what it is about Fred Thompson that makes you want to support him. Is it his accomplishments as a senator? If so, which ones? Or is it just his persona and the way he talks? Is it his positions on the issues? I like the guy and would vote for him cheerfully if he's the nominee, but I'm mystified about his appeal to anyone, let alone conservatives.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Jim Robinson said...

Fred is the great white joke of the 2005 election. He thinks he can "act" his way into the White House. He cant even feild questions. He is a media whore. Loves attention and wants to campaign from his home. I wont vote for him. Not in a primary. Not in the general. Go away FRed you are embarassing yourself with your inexperience. Its laughable. It really is.

Go Rudy Go!

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home