Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

For more on Thompson from other Tennessee bloggers, check out: www.blognetnews.com/tennessee

Fred Thompson is a far better actor than politician. If he gets in the race, he'll be far out of this depth. I guess Democrats can overlook that with say, Obama, but I don't think Republicans will.

Thompson's advantage over Giuliani and McCain, and to a lesser extent, Romney, is that unless some new information comes out about Fred's past positions being in conflict with current perception, Thompson won't face the problems of having to stave off sniping from both the left and right that the other hopefuls will.

While I would have no problem supporting Rudy if he wins the nomination (as a former NYC resident, you really had to see how far the city had fallen by 1993 and understand the liberal culture he had to deal with to comprehend the magnitude of what Giuliani accomplished), a check of any conservative-leaning blog or news board shows there's a big contingent out there who treat him with a distaste as strong as any they feel for the Democratic hopefuls. And while Hillary faces a similar problem of attacks from the right and left in her campaign, the difference is the big media oulets will not only give prefunctionary mention of her dislike within the far left of the Democratic Party. The public image will be of a party united, and folks like Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pink gals angry with Mrs. Clinton will be marginalized even more than they have been since the Democrats regained control of Congress.

Splits between the right and the current three GOP frontrunners will be rehashed ad nauseum over the comming months and into the general election, should one of them come away with the nomination. There would no doubt be media efforts to show a similar split if Thompson enters and wins the nominatiion -- he hangs out with movie people, you know -- but the dislike on the right would have to be ginned up from scratch, as opposed to feeding what's already there, as is the case with Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

The fact is, polls right now mean nothing more than name recognitions. Fred Thompson, who once was pro-choice but seems to be getting a pass on that, is unknown to most Americans who don't watch "Law and Order." I admit he's a heck of a spokesman, but what real basis is there for believing he can be a good conservative president? Right now his principal appeal seems to be that he is not McCain, Romney, or Giuliani.

What more do you want, Lowell?

Thompson is solidly conservative, as proven by his voting record and the refreshingly blunt and unequivocal stands on issues he has taken during this recent boomlet. Giuliani and McCain are simply not Conservative, and Romney may be, but how can we trust that the guy who "shifted" to Conservatism only a few years ago won't "shift" back once he's past the Republican primary? Also, though it shouldn't matter, the Mormon issue can not be wished away. It will certainly cost Romney some votes in the general election - votes we may not be able to spare when running against Hillary. Can we really take that chance? I don't think so.

Some of the second-tier candidates are Conservative, sure, but none of them are electable, and we all know it.

So Thompson is the only candidate that is both...

Verifiably Conservative AND Electable.

Also, as you admitted, he's one heck of a spokesman. And that's not a quality to downplay - that's one thing that made Reagan Reagan - the ability to COMMUNICATE Conservative ideas to a public who doesn't get those ideas communicated in any other medium, be it popular entertainment or government schools. Bush has not communicated Conservatism to the people, and as the new Pew Research Center poll shows, the country is tilting leftward as a result. Liberalism sounds good, but doesn't work. Conservatism works, but requires explaining, because much of the reasons Liberal ideas don't work are because of the unintended consequences.

These things must be communicated. Thompson has the ability to be that Communicator, like Reagan was before him.

And for the guy up there that said he was pro-choice before - that's still up in the air. Nobody has been able to produce a quote of Thompson actually saying so. That is going off hearsay from a couple of old articles mentioning Thompson. But the National Right to Life Committee says he has always been Pro-Life, and they have pointed out that they supported him from the start, and his voting record is completely Pro-Life, so they were right to support him.

In short, Thompson is the whole package. Nobody else is.

A solidly Conservative electable candidate with great communication skills?

That's far more appeal than just "not being McCain, Romney and Giuliani.

And you're wondering why we are excited?

Thompson is THE guy for '08. By far.

I used to believe that Thompson was a viable candidate but frankly in the last few weeks I've read a few opinion pieces he's written and heard some radio commentary by him and I'm not impressed. He seems to be going for the folksy sage approach and I don't find it convincing.

I was much more impressed when I thought of him as a politician while watching him act in movies.

Eb,

Don't underestimate that "folksy" approach. Remember, it worked for Ronald Reagan AND his commentaries on radio before he was President.

Also, it's a bit unfair to complain about Thompson's opinion pieces on the radio(and the ones you read were likely transcripts of the radio broadcasts). You may not think they are in-depth "serious" pieces, but they're not really supposed to be - remember, he's filling in for Paul Harvey, and the pieces he does necessarily have to fit the tenor and confines of that particular show.

So the "folksy" approach is not only appropriate on Paul Harvey's Radio show, it's actually a requirement. You don't fill on on somebody's show and turn it into a whole different enterprise just because you're running for President.

So your criticisms there are patently unfair, which I have a feeling you already knew before you posted...

And finally, regarding his radio opinion pieces - I think he's done a fantastic job. They are pithy(as the format requires), effective pieces of political communication, and show a person able to pack a punch with a smile in a short amount of time. They are also admirably bold - going after Ghandi? Poo pooing Global Warming? Sounding tough on Iran in the context of 300? These pieces show another aspect of the great appeal of Fred Thompson - he doesn't talk like other candidates. He's blunt and unflinching in his opinions, whereas the normal candidate(think the big three) would couch their positions in the normal political equivocation dance.

This is effective political communication in the media age, and again, Fred Thompson shows a talent for this better than any other candidate since Reagan, in my opinion.

Looking ahead, with perhaps too much optimism, to Thompson's nomination, here's an idea:

Nixon's maxim, that a candidate must run to the right to get nominated then run to the center to get elected, will not be a problem for Thompson until he is nominated. It would be nice if there were a way for him to "run to the center" without having to compromise his principles. There is: Lieberman for VP.

"So your criticisms there are patently unfair, which I have a feeling you already knew before you posted..."

David,

Actually I did not know Thompson was filling in for Paul Harvey and I didn't know the pieces I read were radio transcripts. I was simply responding to what I heard and read. So if my criticisms were unfair, I'd give me a little credit and drop the "Patently".

I hope it is clear from what I wrote above that your feeling about what I knew before I posted was wrong, patently or not.

I'm a longtime fan of Paul Harvey and love his folksy wisdom but wouldn't have ever considered him a serious presidential candidate.

If Thompson wants to be president, he is going to have to have a broader appeal than the Republican base. I argue that these commentaries do not have that broad appeal. Right now I am not arguing whether they are right or wrong, just how effective they are or are not.

Eb,

Fair enough. I apologize for my reaction and insinuation. I figured you knew that he was subbing for Harvey and were castigating him for the style of the piece anyway, which would be pretty unfair. But since that wasn't the case, I withdraw what I said about your motives.

As for the rest of it, I think that's fine - but make no mistake - this commentaries are something Fred was into before this running for President stuff came up. He's been filling in for Harvey most of the year. It's a job. Nothing more or less, and I don't think that Thompson is planning to run any possible campaign by only releasing his Paul Harvey radio fill in bits.

He'll run a serious campaign if he jumps in. And yes, "folksy" spots like this will probably be part of it - but it won't be all of it, I assure you.

"I argue that these commentaries do not have that broad appeal."

And I argue that you are incorrect.

They sell well with the very large Paul Harvey audience. And that is not aninsignificant part of the electorate.

It includes a lot of the old Reagan voters in the blue collar segments. Its enough to easily carry the south as a solid bloc, and gain back in the midwest and rockies enough voters to win the Presidency.

Other than the liberal west coast, a few dense uban cities in the northern midwest, and the urban corridor of the NE, those commentaries sell very well.

Demographic is destiny.

Don't underestimate that folksy approach. I think a lot of average Americans are tired of "politics as usual". Fred has common sense which seems to be lacking in almost all the other candidates, yet, he's still a politician and is at home in that environment. He is about as honest as you can expect... for a politician. Also, ask yourself if you still have the same opinion about anything as you did even last year, let alone 5 or 10.

As for the pro-choice issue, I'm not against it either. I just don't think it's something the government should be involved in because it's impossible to stop abortions... why make more unenforcable laws?

By the same token of wishing the government would bow out of the issue, I don't think it should have to support it monetarily, either. We have much bigger issues than worrying about stupid women (and men) who don't want to accept the consequences of their actions. When people have to pay for it out of their own pockets the number of them will greatly reduce as a natural consequence because a lot of people will think twice about engaging in something that will result in an unwanted pregnancy. Or they'll do something stupider like self terminate and kill themselves along with the fetus, which means problem solved...hardhearted, I know, but either way...

The whole nation has grown soft, myself included, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.

Freds the best!