Friday, January 18, 2008

Fred, Rush Limbaugh, Courage and Harry Reid

It’s been obvious for some time that my candidate for president is Fred Thompson. Not only was he the only one to recognize the implications of the filing by the Bush Justice Dept. in the 2nd Amendment case now before the Supreme Court (see my 1/17/08 Posting), and the only one so far to speak out against it, Fred also immediately came to Rush Limbaugh’s defense when Senator Reid tried to smear Rush.

For those who missed the smear episode, Senator Reid castigated Rush on the floor of the Senate for something Rush had not said (a very unusual act for a US Senator), he went on to issue a letter (signed also by 41 Democrats including Clinton and Obama) that smeared Rush, and sent it to Rush’s employer who gave it to Rush. Rush then one-upped Reid by auctioning off the letter on eBay and matching the multi-million dollar bid – turning the money over to a Marine charity. Reid later tried to imply that it was all his idea.

Fred Thompson immediately issued a statement supporting Rush when this first happened. So far as I know, no other candidate has spoken out about this outrage.

Just so you know, my position is that Thompson is my candidate. If he doesn’t make it, I would support and contribute to either Romney or Giuliani; I will sit on my hands if it is McCain, and I will actively oppose Huckabee. My expectation is that the nomination will not be decided until the Republican convention.

Cross-posted from the American Thinker:

The Anti Soundbite Candidate
By Rick Moran, 1/17/08

Fred Thompson is not the most inspiring speaker in the GOP race for President. Nor is he the best looking or the smoothest talking among the candidates running. He doesn't have Mitt Romney's hair or Mike Huckabee's glibness. He isn't as aggressively positive as Rudy Giuliani. And while his personal story is compelling, it can't compete with John McCain's inspirational journey from POW to the gates of the White House.

But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantative candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.

There is a heft to Thompson, a seriousness of purpose that none of the other candidates can match. It is most pronounced during the debates where Thompson's answers to questions are more subtle and nuanced than those of his rivals. His sometimes laconic style zings his opponents with brutal accuracy. Often, the candidate will answer a question by stating "Yep" or "Nope" and pause a few seconds to gather his thoughts. What follows is almost always coherent and is informed by years of experience in government.

His now famous moment during the Des Moines Register debate where he refused to raise his hand like a schoolboy when the moderator asked who believed in global warming was a metaphor for the entire Thompson campaign; keeping the Mickey Mouse to a minimum while trying to be as substantative as possible with the voters. In short, Thompson is running the campaign his way and not in a manner dictated by any previous candidate's success or any criticism that comes his way from media pundits.

He has well thought out policy positions - "White Papers" the campaign calls them - have won him almost universal praise from sources as wildly divergent as the Washington Post and the National Review.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Thompson's tax plan:

"However, what's refreshing about the Thompson plan is that it goes well beyond the current Republican mantra to make "the Bush tax cuts permanent." That is certainly needed, but the GOP also needs a more ambitious agenda, especially with economic growth slowing. The flat tax has the added political benefit of assaulting the special interests who populate the Gucci Gulch outside Congress's tax-writing committee rooms. Lower rates and simplify the tax code, and you instantly reduce the opportunities for Beltway corruption. It is both a tax policy and political reform.”

ABC had this to say about his plan to save Social Security:

“Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson's plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pabulum on the subject in one key way: He's actually treating voters like adults.”

If all of this is true, why is Fred Thompson fighting for his political life this Saturday in the South Carolina primary?

It is a question that, if Thompson's bid falls short, will be asked by many who saw the former Tennessee senator's entry into the race as a godsend. In the end, the candidate must look to his own efforts and the way the campaign began.

Leaving aside the question of whether Thompson's September entry into the race could be considered "too late" there is the reality of how that campaign was conducted.

Looking back, one could see it was unfocused, even aimless, in its first weeks with the candidate himself trying to find his voice. His early efforts were spotty and sometimes dreadfully boring. By many reports, voters came away perplexed and not a little disappointed.

Thompson's Socratic style of addressing those early crowds was a good way to discuss issues on a substantive level but a lousy way to run for president. Voters more attuned to snappy, one sentence solutions to the problems of the world coming from other candidates found that when listening to Thompson, they had to think, not react emotionally.

In this way, Thompson appealed to people more on an intellectual level. This was fine as far as it went but it brought him few converts and elicited nothing but contempt from the media.

How often have we heard the refrain that the American people wanted a campaign that dealt with issues not personalities? Well, here was Fred Thompson supposedly giving people what we were told they wanted and his once robust poll numbers began to plummet. Seeking an explanation, reporters and pundits who saw Thompson arrived at the conclusion that the candidate didn't want it bad enough, that he had no "fire in the belly," that he hated campaigning and didn't extend himself as the other candidates were doing.

There may be a glimmer of truth in some of that conventional wisdom. Perhaps the candidate believed it was enough that he put his ideas on the table and let the American people decide whether or not they were worthy of consideration. Indeed, Thompson has said as much in the past. What perhaps the candidate didn't realize is that fighting for those ideas and tying them to overarching themes is the most effective way to reach the voter.

But for whatever reason - the befuddlement of the press over his style of campaigning or a perceived lack of energy and desire - the candidate found himself at the end of November trailing badly in the polls. It was then that the campaign seemed to find itself and Thompson found those themes as well as his issues and tied them together. Crowds began to react more positively. It appeared the candidate himself was more energized and active.

But Thompson was pushing against weeks of very negative press and a conventional wisdom that had all but written him off. It was a daunting task to turn the campaign around but he has. Now he must convince voters in South Carolina and beyond that the conventional wisdom about his candidacy is wrong and that he deserves a second look.

His most recent appearances in South Carolina have shown an entirely different candidate than the one who appeared unfocused and low key during the first three months of his campaign. He has now found his mission; that the campaign is for the heart and soul of the Republican party and the future of the old Reagan coalition

When speaking in this vein, the candidate exudes a passion that may have been lacking in his earlier campaign stops. It carries over into his contrasting the records of his opponents with his own as he hammers away at their lack of true conservative credentials. He still talks specifics and issues but in a way that delineates his positions from those of his rivals. In short, he has found the bridge between a way to campaign effectively without sacrificing his belief that the voters hunger for substance in their candidate.

Thompson still pauses and thinks before he answers questions either from the media or voters. He speaks in complete sentences. He treats voters like "adults" as ABC mentioned above. In this sense, he is the anti-soundbite candidate. Whether Thompson's no-nonsense approach to campaigning will give him victory will depend largely on whether voters are moved to support a man who views running for president not as the fulfillment of raw ambition but as a chance to serve the people.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've said it before - Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson is going nowhere. Most of this is his own doing. No fire, no spunk, comes across with a devil-may-care attitude...elect me or not, who cares?
Currently Mccain is leading nationally followed by Huck and Romney. But we americans are fickle and turn on a dime. Remember Rudy leading for the last year? And there is a lot to be said for momentum. Americans want to back a winner...Romney won Michigan, he's going to win Nevada easily. That's going to give him a bump going into So Carolina. He's currently third there, but with the MI and NV wins, he'll move way up...second place at worst case, maybe into first....

At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't believe the polls. Fred will win SC.

At 1:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Fred Thompson can show that he is a viable candidate by showing more enthusiasm in these debates, I'll vote for him.

At 8:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many reasons out there for supporting or not supporting any candidate. Obviously, most will choose someone who best represents their own values.

To say you will work to derail a Republican candidate doesn't make any sense. This would only serve to help a Democratic candidate. Are you willing, by your actions, to help elect a Democrat as our next Prez? I hope not. Any Republican that is chosen to run should be supported (at least by those call themselves conservatives)as it beats the alternative. Or, are you one who would just stay home on election day because "your" candidate was not on the ballot?

At 9:42 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

To Say It Isn't So, I am a life-long Republican and a conservative, but most of all I am an American. I believe that Huckabee is the most dangerous man in America for reasons I have gone into in previous posts, and, yes, I will oppose him if he gets the nomination. His combination of arrogance and ignorance rivals that of Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis.

At 10:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You sound like a very angry citizen. It's good to be passionate. And yes, without saying so, but you did, I am an American first. I am also passionate about this country. Anyone who works to defeat a Republican conservative must thus align themselves with the opposite side.

I choose not to take that path. That would mean helping a Democate. Any Democrate elected will have as one of their basic beliefs, pro choice, (baby killer). Anyone who thinks it is OK to kill a baby will never get my vote- therefore I remain a conservative and Republican and yes, even an American.

At 4:30 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

I don't think you are thinking this through. Not Nixon nor Reagan nor Bush 41 nor Bush 43 has been able to do anything about overturning Roe v. Wade or the even more pernicious Doe v. Bolton because what we need is a large Republican majority in the Senate coinciding with retiring justices. A Huckabee run would be ruinous for the party, and we would lose tremendous ground.


Post a Comment

<< Home