democrats and Hillary Scared Shitless of Fred Thompson
I predict that Fred Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the presidential election. Why?
First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate. Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though respect for our current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply not an effective communicator or articulator of conservative principles. President Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the 1996> nominee, and also better as a communicator and campaigner than his father. That is how bad things have been for conservatives since the Gipper left the White House. Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal communicator. His background as a film and television star combines perfectly with his background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that he is not only comfortable in front of the camera or at the microphone, but his skills in rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure since Senator Robert Taft over fifty years ago.
Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson did not tolerate the corruption of the ixon Administration. He can effectively point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in opposing corruption when it was his political party that had problems. Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption of the Clinton Administration and stood out as the lone Republican senator with real guts during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The combination of these two principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about how she became the best investor in America (with no experience), and otherwise to do more than simply suggest that Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.
Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some conservatives may worry about his friendship and past support for John McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is reciprocated: McCain would be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred Thompson in the presidential election.
Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy" when he was in the Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for "work" in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as "lazy" at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.
Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson would completely sweep the South, including problematic states like Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few modern candidates who has true regional drawing power. Thompson, though, would run very strongly in swing states outside the South like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly independent and undecided voters is real.
Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in how the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his palpable decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him look awful and any attempt will backfire in sympathetic support for him. Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on the issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because, like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants power. Thompson just wants what is best for America.
Copywrite 2007 - Barry G.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Burns— 2007/06/28 @ 02:28 AM — (Reply)
nice recap of The Fred.......luv the guy.
Comment by Joe Gringo— 2007/06/29 @ 03:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/06/29 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Hillary, who I loathe almost as much as you, Barry, would prefer a Thompson candidacy, I think. There's not much to distinguish her from Guiliani- both are know-it-all, hypocritical East-Coast elitists, firmly tucked into corporate America's back pocket. Guiliani trounces her in terms of actually DOING anything (other than ignoring her spouse's philandering ways). A Thompson candidacy would polarize the GOP somewhat (which is why Conservatives love him so much), and toss the middle-of-the-road Independents into play. This opens up border states, IMHO. Frankly, Guiliani, at this point, wins states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Thompson throws those states into up for grabs.
The bigger challenge, as I see it, is that Thompson is late getting into the game. A lot of money is already in the Guiliani and Romney camps, and a lot of the campaign muckity-mucks have their six-figure salary. Still, Thompson could sit back and not announce formally until December, and still put up a good showing- that's how badly the BibleBelter's want a Good 'Ole Boy for the GOP.
On a completely unrelated theme, I just finished a book that constantly reminded me of you, Barry. It's called "Invasion of the Party Snatchers", and it's written by a former campaign staffer for Barry, a Victor Gold. Seems Mr.Gold is furious at the current administration as a complete betrayal of the Conservative Movement founded by Barry Goldwater and takes them to task. No, that doesn't mean he's voting Democrat. I don't think he could, based on what he wrote. But it was a really good read about how the GOP has lost it's heart. It's full of lines from Goldwater, most of which I'm sure you know by heart.
Anyway, I don't know if it's been officially released yet (I acquired a pre-publication galley proof), but when it is- I hope you get a chance to read it. If you don't have a library or book store near by (and based on your posts, I'll assume that even if you do, you don't know where they are
Comment by Michael— 2007/07/06 @ 12:41 PM — (Reply)
So which democrat do you like Harry? To tell you the truth, I would be fine with what I know of Obama so far.
If Thompson announces, more than enough money will pour in. Some of the sure losers will fire their money to him immediately as will the RNC who knows already that he is the one candidate out there that can beat Hillary. Heck, YOU might even send in money.
I am already behind the Thompson movement.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/06 @ 01:58 PM — (Reply)
Of the Democrats, I most like Richardson personally... but honestly I've seen empty grocery bags show more charisma. Obama's okay, but has something of a politician's habit of speaking "carefully." Give me someone who'll say what he's thinking, even if I don't agree with it. Hillary, I loathe. Kucinich is a joke. Edwards even more of one.
The guy I really wanted, Russ Feingold, has said he's not gonna run. He probably isn't electable, but then, neither was Goldwater. Sometimes principle is more important than electability in a candidate. Goldwater lost in the worst defeat (up to that point), but he focused the heart of the GOP. The Democrats haven't had a "heart" for most of my lifetime.
Comment by Michael— 2007/07/06 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/06 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/06 @ 01:58 PM — (Reply)