Yes, the Next Reagan
Two pro-Thompson essays
By Bruce Walker
No Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine enthusiasm among conservatives as Fred Thompson.
Two months ago, I wrote an article, “The Next Reagan,” in which I outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan. Events since then have confirmed my arguments. 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 Nixon 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, 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 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 –“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 very 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 againt 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. We have our Reagan.
________________________________________
Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, by Outskirts Press, was published in January 2006.
walloef@cox.net
------------------------------------
Fredheads
By Lisa Fabrizio | View comments
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.”
________________________________________
Lisa Fabrizio is a freelance columnist from Stamford, Connecticut.
mailbox@lisafab.com
lisafab.com
intellectualconservative.com |
