Posts Tagged → Fred Thompson
Assessing the GOP field: Fred Thompson
Law and Order fans may associate Fred Thompson more with plasma TV lifts than presidential politics, but the former US Senator from Tennessee actually has a solid political background, securing two Senate terms in office and taking over the spot once held by Al Gore, but vacated when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 Democratic ticket.
Thompson falls into the reliably conservative camp and while he may or may not be completely Reagan-esque in his values, he is probably as close as the GOP will get in this year’s race. Thompson has the boldness to balk at being expected to march in lock-step with the leaders of the religious right, like Focus On the Family, and the temerity to question the relevance and logic of certain debate questions, refusing to play along with ridiculous propositions.
Yet Thompson has had the good common sense to not alienate faith voters, nor has he kicked up a ruckus just to get attention. In fact, Fred Thompson has even been accused to not wanting the presidency desperately enough, although as Gregory MacDonald wrote in Fletch and the Man Who, would you really want to vote for someone who did?
Thompson’s Senate record verifies some exposure to foreign policy, and he is one of the few candidates consistently endorsed as reliably pro-life on the abortion issue. I trust his common-sense approach to most domestic issues, which he doesn’t sell from a viewpoint of ideological stridency, but from more of a blue-collar, “this is what makes sense to me” approach that ought to appeal to Reagan conservatives disaffected by both the MoveOn.org Democrats and increasingly big-government RINO Republicans.
In an ideal world, Thompson would be setting the polls and the electorate on fire. He has few negatives to speak of from a “Reagan conservative” viewpoint, and he’s a plain-spoken, to-the-point public speaker. Yet for some reason, he’s just not catching on; not yet, anyway.
In an ideal world, WonderfulPessimist.com would love to endorse Fred Thompson for the GOP nomination for the presidency during the caucus and primary season. He’s the candidate that is closest to our hearts, and would stand a decent chance of moving California into the GOP side of the voting column, much as Reagan did.
But the sad reality is, it’s not an ideal world and, so far, Thompson’s not lighting a fire under most of the GOP electorate. While we hope this turns around and Thompson emerges from the early primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, gearing up for Super Duper Tuesday with at least a couple wins under his belt, right now that doesn’t seem to be the way the tides are turning.
So for now, WonderfulPessimist.com can’t endorse the candidate it likes best; Thompson needs to prove he’s a winner before that can take place.
A Romneyic Victory
Mitt Romney won the Ames straw poll for presidential preference among Iowa Republicans this past weekend, proving nothing.
Well, at least he showed up. Absent were the real campaign heavyweights. Missing in action were RINO favorites like Rudy Guiliani and the candidate destined to hawk incontinence supplies on late-night TV ads, Sen. John McCain, as well as the still-not-quite-fully-declared faves, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.
So, again, Mitt Romney won an Ames, IA, straw poll, proving nothing.
It’s like naming Sneezy the best of the Seven Dwarves. The only sane response to that is to say, “OK. Sure. So when do the REAL candidates get here?” Until he really goes up against Guiliani, Thompson and Gingrich, Romney’s becoming the new poster boy to have his name define a meaningless win. Forget Pyhrric victories; from now on, they ought to be known as Romneyic victories.
But hey… at least Romney’s win drove one other RINO candidate out of the race. That OTHER Thompson… Tommy, best known for his four terms as governor of Wisconsin… finally dropped out of the race when it became clear he couldn’t even beat Mitt Romney, let alone any of the big boys.
So at least there’s that.
For the hard-of-thinking: Mitt Romney won a presidential poll no other serious candidate showed up for, accomplishing nothing.
Thompson rumbles to the front for now
Former Tennessee Senator and Hollywood star in films like Die Hard 2 as well as TV’s Law and Order, Fred Thompson, isn’t even formally in the GOP race for the presidency yet, and his star has already eclipsed that of former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani. While well within the margin of error, Thompson now has a narrow lead over Guiliani in most polls, seeming to draw conservatives who’d been undecided, as well as robbing disenchanted supporters away from John McCain and Mitt Romney.
By the time he enters the race formally, he’ll either be considered a reliable part of a two-man race for the nomination against Guiliani, or his 15 minutes will have faded as conservatives rally around a more obvious savior, Newt Gingrich.
The political sound machines are already getting fired up and it’s not even 2008 yet for another six months and two weeks.
Is Thompson a more reliable conservative than Giuliani, McCain and Romney? Sure. It doesn’t take much to lay claim to that mantle, but sure.
The real question is, can Thomson command the stage well enough to be victorious over the “girl-power” candidate, Hillary, and the “pretty-boy power” candidate, Obama.
Ultimately, that’s who he’ll be tested against if he gets the nomination. Might be nice to know he can go toe-to-toe without blinking before anointing the man.
Bloomberg a dangerous wildcard
Current New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is a dangerous wild card in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. He is especially dangerous toward the hopes of GOP candidates for office, a danger made more real by a recent online report suggesting Bloomberg is willing to spend up to one billion of his $5.5B personal fortune in a third-party bid for the presidency.
The popular media take is that Bloomberg is a change of pace from far-left Democrats and far-right Republicans, because he is socially liberal, fiscally conservative and from the East Coast. Yet that holds no water as a viable difference from at least two, and possibly three, current top presidential contenders.
First of all, Bloomberg is a virtual carbon-copy of top GOP presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani, who has the benefit of running as a major party candidate. Their views are nearly identical and Giuliani has the benefit of receiving a lion’s share of the credit for post-9/11 leadership in New York City. It Giuliani secures the GOP nod, there would be no appreciable difference between the two that would make a Bloomberg run make any kind of sense, other than to split the vote and allow a Democratic presidential victory.
Second is GOP candidate Mitt Romney, currently battling with Arizona Senator John McCain for second place versus Giuliani for the Republican endorsement. Just like Bloomberg and Giuliani, Romney is of the exact same socially liberal, fiscally conservative, East Coast liberal type represented by Giuliani and Bloomberg. Again, a Romney candidacy would provide no contrast for Bloomberg to run against, other than to split the anti-Hillary/anti-Obama vote and ensure a Democratic win. And it should be noted that McCain, while not an East Coast candidate, fits in lock step positionally with Giuliani, Romney and Bloomberg.
In fact, the GOP field is so packed with East Coast social liberal/fiscal conservative candidates, one has to wonder if there’s any hope for the conservative movement in 2008.
But I mentioned a third candidate who – arguably – fits the same mold. I’m speaking, of course, about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. Despite being slightly more liberal than Giuliani, Romney and Bloomberg, some votes actually have Sen. Rodham as more conservative than McCain on select issues. Sen. Rodham-Clinton is basically Mayor Bloomberg on Phentermine.
What I think motivated Bloomberg more than any real, substantive “difference” from candidates like Giuliani, Romnet, Bloomberg and Rodham-Clinton is something far more provincial: a good ol’ New York pissing contest. For the last several election cycles, East Coast candidates – and specifically New Yorkers – have been nonfactors in presidential politics, much to the chagrin of the New York-centric liberal news media. New York has taken a back seat to the deep South as the most influential voting block, and New Yorkers are eager to get back into the game of presidential politics.
Think about it.
Bush II/Cheney: Texas and Wyoming
Clinton/Gore: Arkansas and Tennessee
Bush/Quayle: Texas/Maine and Indiana
Reagan/Bush: California and Texas/Maine
Carter/Mondale: Georgia and Minnesota
Ford/Rockefeller: Michigan and New York.
So, you have to go all the way back to 1974-1977, a brief stint as Ford’s vice president, to find the last time a New Yorker was in the White House. That’s at least a 30 year absence and it’s clear that one of the largest states in the nation is eager to be “back in the game.”
By the way, Rockefeller was, in his day, the leader of the liberal wing of the GOP, so even he fit with the ever-more-bloated socially liberal/fiscally conservative mold that is so well represented in this election cycle by Bloomberg, McCain, Giuliani, Romney and – arguably – Rodham-Clinton.
To be blunt, Bloomberg’s “change of pace” proposed candidacy is no “change of pace” at all – it simply litters the field with another sound-alike candidate designed to blot out any legitimate conservatives from getting a foothold in the 2008 election cycle.
The only real hopes for a legitimate change in rhetoric in this election cycle are Fred Thomspon, Newt Gingrich, or – arguably – a dark horse emergence from someone like Mike Huckabee. Bloomberg doesn’t represent change in any fashion; but a potential third-party run could doom the country to a Democratic presidential victory.
Dobson disses Thompson
Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson dissed a potential presidential run by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in a recent interview with US News and World Report. Going so far as to say the Church of Christ-baptized Thompson was not a Christian – or, at least, not the type of Christian that meets with Dobson’s approval – Dobson all but ruled out support for a Thompson candidacy from Focus On the Family. They won’t even donate some custom pens that say “Christians for Thompson ’08!”
Dr. Dobson has also recently suggested he’d be lukewarm to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s bid for the White House, due to Romney’s Mormonism. Wonderful Pessimist wonders exactly what kind of conservative it would take to please Dr. Dobson. Is an evangelical Christian faith all that matters? Current GOP President George W. Bush said all the right things about faith in both his campaign runs, yet has governed less conservatively than many on the Christian right anticipated.
Wonderful Pessimist isn’t bothered by looking at candidates’ religious background, but having it be the sole determining factor is a bit ridiculous. The reason not to support Mitt Romney is that he’s less conservative than George W. Bush, not that he’s a Mormon. As for Thompson, he’d be the leading conservative in the crowd, if he declares, so Wonderful Pessimist would welcome him into the GOP nomination fray.
Of course, Wonderful Pessimist is still holding out hope for a Newt Gingrich candidacy; there’s no sharper conservative thinker on the national stage right now, and while he was some character issues, I doubt they’d ultimately cripple his candidacy.
One of the 57 percent!
According to a CBS News/New York Times opinion poll, 57 percent of GOP voters would prefer having more choices to pick from in the upcoming presidential season. For once, CBS/NYT has a poll I can agree with, even though I still think that all polls are hokum.
Of course, the primary reason at least 57 percent of GOP voters want more choices is because the three main front-runners are moderates at best, and in the case of John McCain, full-blown RINOs. While current front-runner Rudy Giuliani is the least objectionable RINO candidate, it remains true that Giuliani and Mitt Romney are northeast liberals of the highest order, even if they do wear GOP clothing. And geography has nothing to do with McCain’s liberalism.
Of course, there are minor conservatives out there, but none that are sparking a fire under GOP voters’ butts. Sam Brownback: Who? Mike Huckabee: Another Arkansasan to the White House? Not likely. Umm… are there any other conservatives in the race? Maybe even via video conferencing?
Perhaps.
Over the weekend, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, a Reagan Republican of the highest order, tossed his hat into the ring. Thompson has name recognition because aside from his stint as senator, he’s been in the Die Hard movies with Bruce Willis and a regular on Law and Order. He’s a minor celebrity.
Now, no one is saying that Thompson’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and certainly if Georgia’s Newt Gingrich eventually tosses his hat in the ring, he has more name recognition, but Thompson’s the first decent conservative to enter the race this year. The real question is whether he can compete with the three RINO stooges, Giuliani, McCain and Romney.
I’m not sure he can, but I’d love to see him succeed. He possesses a higher profile than Huckabee, and people know who he is. That’s a plus. And Gingrich may never enter the race, for all we know. For now, Thompson is the default favored candidate of Wonderful Pessimist, but we’re still taking applications.
C’mon, conservatives! Pull your heads out of the sand and stand up for limited government, lower taxes, a free market economy and all the other values that made the GOP a majority party under Reagan-Bush and a congressional majority under Gingrich.
Conservatism works every time it’s embraced. Pulling back from it and governing like Democrats? That just makes folks want to vote for the real liberals.
