The Fred Thompson Boomlet
Analysis of the Newest Phenomenon
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For the past few weeks, ex-SEN Fred Thompson has publicly flirted with running for President. Despite lamentations from Republicans, there is a rather strong bench of Rs who could run for President including GOV Bush, GOV Sanford, GOV Pawlenty, Mayor Guiliani, SEN McCain among others. Nonetheless, there is a yearning for a "new Reagan" to woo conservatives and moderates into a grand coalition willing to win the War and embrace market-friendly reforms to the ever growing government. But the surprisingly strong support for Fred Thompson is more than just a yearning for a "true conservative." Here are a couple reasons F. Thompson is gaining traction where others are not:
1) There is no MAJOR issue where he is at odds with any conservative wing of the party. And Thompson is not a recent convert for political reasons on any major issue.
2) Thompson was outside politics from 2002-2008 when Republican stock went downhill. As a corollary, Thompson is not tied to President Bush or the current Senate in any way.
3) Thompson's ability to communicate ideas clearly and earnestly makes many think of Reagan's ability to win over people to ideas that are not necessarily popular (say seeing Iraq through until victory)
4) Most people like a person who is not a career politician but is an educated and active citizen to be President
5) Thompson is probably the most conservative electable candidate.
As a voter who has always thought GOV Bush would make the best President of all contenders and as a voter who has considered voting for McCain and Guiliani for months now, Fred Thompson would immediately jump onto my shortlist.
Support for Guiliani is wide and shallow. F. Thompson is a big threat tho Guiliani's lead. McCain' 20% is actually a pretty solid group that probably won't grow or shrink much over the next 6-9 months. F. Thompson could take much of the Gingrich/Brownback/Huckabee support and coalesce it around himself. F. Thompson would be the most conservative of a Guiliani-McCain-Thompson race, but he would be moderate enough and independent enough to win over voters in a general election.
When a man's wife is urging him to run, it seems likely it will happen. My prediction is that F. Thompson will run and will be a top tier candidate.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | AR-SEN: Huckabee Should Drop Hopeless Presidential Bid and Challenge Pryor (D), Part II — Comments (19) »
The Fred Thompson Boomlet 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
with my last blog here at RS:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/pilgrim/2007/apr/02/my_case_for_an_08_thom...
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
What's his stance on borders? He's not an open borders fanatic like Brownback, McCain, Guliani, and Edward Kennedy is he? I give money to Romney, Tancredo, Hunter, anyone who has a conervative voting record and can stop the RINOS in this race.
I'd be just fine with an "open borders fanatic" so long as they were able to communicate effectively and were right on the other important stuff. I got no idea where he's at on this, but IMO it is extremely unlikely any Republican candidate with the Tancredo position on immigration will get through the primaries and the general in 2008 or any other year.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He has produced a video on his thoughts about immigration:
http://www.anotherronaldreagan.com/Thompson_President_video.html
Probably. Because the Congress will likely pass some version of Kennedy-McCain-Bush this year. We'll have 20 million people on some sort of "path-to-citizenship" and no fence. And enforcement will continue mean prosecuting border patrol officers for shooting drug smugglers.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Of course, if this happens, it won't matter who the repubican nominee is. For 08 or the next 10 presidential elections. The republicans will have achieved their biggest dream. Permanent minority status.
The Republicans will simply adapt to the changing demographics by becoming more liberal. That should be pretty easy for them to pull off. It seems like we've already begun beta testing that version.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Good post. I agree. I would support Sanford over anyone, but he's not going to run in 2008. Thompson is a good alternative.
Any politician who voted for the worst bill in my lifetime- McCain Kennedy will never be receiving my vote and most other conservatives votes. They'll have to win with a coalition of moderates, RINOS and special interests groups.
for our party like they are for our country. I will not vote for anyone who supports something the McCain-Kennedy or Bush plans.
If the Republicans continue to sell us out on these issues, I'll be voting for the Constitution Party.
Fred seems like a good guy and I'd have no problem voting for him if he won the nomination.
That said, I think your points are a little off:
1. From what I've read, Thompson was one of the key backers of McCain-Feingold, actually going so far as to help draft it. Not exactly a popular conservative position. He also until recently seemed to be pretty similar to McCain on immigration. Now, on the Fox interview he said that his position might have changed on those. But yes, for the most part, he is in line with the mainstream conservative positions.
2. Thompson was out of politics but he was one of Scooter Libby's chief backers, was the WH's "sherpa" for John Roberts, did the voice-over for the Bush speech at the 2004 RNC, and has written numerous commentaries and said plenty of stuff on the radio and in interviews in support of the President. If the dems want to tie a southern guy with a drawl to Bush given that record, I don't think they'll have a problem. In fact, based on appearance/demeanor/persona, one could say that Thompson is the most similar to W, certainly moreso than Rudy, John or Mitt. Any GOP nominee is going to be tied to Bush, it's just something that we'll have to deal with.
3. Reagan was giving the Time for Choosing speech starting in the late 50s for GM across the country. He had 2 terms as Governor of CA. Thompson never struck me as some inspiring leader or advocate for conservatism. If you go back and read articles from 1994-2002, I doubt you'll find many that paint him as a Conservative leader or a key voice in the movement. The Reagan comparison strikes me as a reach. Fred's good on Law and Order in a small role, and he's had some good parts in Red October, Line of Fire and No Way Out, but let's not hold him out as some star. I heard people on TV say he'll get all this Hollywood money. From who? Geffen and Spielberg are gonna give money to Fred over Hillary or Obama? To say that he's some big Hollywood star is pushing it. Was Steven Hill a big star? He was the DA on L and O before Fred. If you think Fred is going to win people over to Iraq, when what he's said about it is no different from what Rudy, McCain or any other Bush supporter is saying, I don't see it. The polling on Iraq has been so bad, it's a lost cause as far as the public is concerned. Is Fred going to bring the country to the "culture of life"? Is he going to chnage everyone's mind on global warming or immigration? I just don't see him doing it, but who knows?
4. The career politician argument doesn't exactly wash either. Most Presidents have political experience, usually in some executive capacity. For the past 40 years all we've heard is Senators don't win, now we're looking to a Senator. Also, chances are if you're running for President, you're de facto "educated and active". What does that mean? John, Rudy, Mitt, Hillary, Barack are all educated and active. I guess you mean that Thompson has an outsider/man of the people vibe. But given that he was in DC going back to Watergate and spent 20 years an insider DC Lobbyist(the K Street angle won't help him given the Abramoff scandal and the general distaste for lobbyists) for numerous corporations and foreign countries, 8 years in the Senate, is well known in Beltway GOP circles, he's not really an outsider. Maybe he could get away with the Red Pickup routine in Tennessee back in 1994, but I doubt that'll work today.
5. Most electable conservative? Probably. But even there, I don't see him really flipping any blue states. He'd probably be stronger in the South than Rudy, McCain or Romney, but he'd be weaker in other states. Going with Thompson is basically hoping for a repeat of 2004 which is unlikely. Ohio is most likely gone. If Richardson is on the ticket as VP, NM is gone. States like IA could flip back to their 2000 blue status. The GOP is going ot need to offset those losses. As of now, Rudy polls pretty well nationally with independents and democrats and he'd be much better positioned to pick up votes in PA, NJ, RI, CT, CA or at least be competitive and make the dems spend money there. But Thompson is more conservative than Rudy and of McCain, Romney and Thompson, Fred is probably the most electable conservative.
We all just might be FREDeralists soon.
Hmmm...The problem I have with your analysis is it does not account for Thompson's ability to unify moderates and conservatives in the party. In Tennessee he won record landslides in the Gore seat when Al became VP. His big strength was his ability to aquire Independent voters in large numbers.
We are 18 months out from an election, which states go blue or red at this point a silly analysis when the probable Democratic Nominee from Democrats is Hillary. Her negatives are so high and one quarter of the electorate says they are "scared" if she is elected.
The other problem you claim that any Republican is going to have Bush. If Hillary, the probable nominee for Dems, runs we are talking about putting Bill back into the Whitehouse as First Lady. I think that Bill being visible helps the Dem base but only with the base. But remember he NEVER won a majority in a general election, only a plurality.
There will be debates. Imagine Thompson debating Hillary Clinton or Obama. Dems worst nightmare!
I strongly disagree with the previous poster's statement which suggests Thompson wouldn't flip any blue states.
When Fred Thompson ran for the senate, he showed that he probably was the best republican campaigner since Reagan. Thompson has the unique ability to attract white collar voters, while at the same time attracting blue collar voters as well. Once Fred puts on his blue jeans and gets in his red pickup truck and rides through the midwest, Reagan democrats will see a guy they can support.Even if he is a republican.
Thompson can run a populist conservative campaign and get away with it. Rudy can run as a populist, but he can't run as a populist conservative. McCain is too old, and Romney is a flip flopping opportunist.
Fred Thompson is the best hope in 2008.
Fred Thompson will have to convince me that supporting McCain-Feingold was the worst mistake of his life before I will even consider him. It was patently obvious then, and I can't trust his judgement in other matters because he got it so wrong on such an elementary matter as Free Speech, more specifically Political Free Speech.
Run from this man like the plague.
Well, not worst mistake of his life, but he said that we should probably scrap it.
I saw him on Chris Wallace's show and he said that he had initially supported it because he saw people giving congresscritters money and then asking them to vote for their special pork. He said that people go to jail in the real world for that, and that he was hoping MF would stop it. He said it didn't work and that we should probably scrap it and just go for full disclosure instead.
He's right on both counts. Congresscritters should go to jail and we should scrap MF.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The plus for Fred is his forensic skills, the thought of him up against Obamarama daring to hope,or Hillary when she starts to flounder and stutter, gives one goosebumps. Apart from Rudy my bet is the rest would roll over, paws in the air, belly up.
Thompson will not be susceptible to the petty "Little Ricky" routine the media pulled on Hillary's senate opponent in order to save the fat fool. Net, the pluses outweigh the minuses.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
It is interesting that so many of us, including me, are excited by a 1 1/2 term U.S. Senator with no executive experience.
That, of course, speaks more about the other candidates than it does about Fred.
It is not his Senate time that makes him a viable or interesting candidate. It is the TV culture that puts a high value on a communicator who can express his ideas and ideals in an effective way. Usually long Senate lives harm that ability so Edwards, Obama and Thompson are fortunate to be under the 10 year mark.
Of course the lack of successful GOVs in this year's race is surprising. I mean GOVs Richardson, Romney and T. Thompson are decent possibilities. But why are none of the following running: GOVs Bush, Sanford, Pawlenty, Owens, Bredesen, Henry, Perry, Rendell or Manchin. All are quite popular in their home state, have at least a couple big successes to tout, and the elusive "executive experience" that is considered a requirement by many for consideration.
I'm wondering whether the post 9/11 political environment requires 1) foreign policy experience and 2) a national profile BEFORE the campaign begins. That would bias things towards Senators and away from Governors.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
You started by saying GOV Bush, GOV Sanford, GOV Pawlenty, Mayor Guiliani, SEN McCain are all strong candidates. I keep up with NR, the Washington Times, and Red State, but of the list you provided I can only identify three without looking them up.
Jeb Bush won't run because even if he were Reagan incarnate for the silver tounge and teflon coating with the wholesomeness of Mother Teresa thrown in, after 8 years of the current Bush, and the 4 years of the previous Bush, he couldn't even win the Republican primary let alone the national election. I've tended to agree with his positions more than W's and think he'd be a good president, but that's the reality of it.
Guiliani is too liberal. Yes he's good on the war and crime, but the feds don't really do crime, that's a local thing. The rest of it he would just foul up. And I don't want him appointing yet another wishy-washy NYT approved "Republican" judge to SCOTUS. And no, I don't care about any promises he's made on that count, they are worth less than they paper he wrote them on.
McCain is McCain. For somebody who votes right 90% of the time, the 10% he votes wrong and the things he does to conservatives that aren't legislative give him negatives as bad as Hillary. Not good and I won't vote for him. Fund raisers seem to be sending him that message too.
Again, with your list of governors, I recognize only four, none of whom strike me as particularly strong candidates. Romney is from a blue state, so its hard to tell how liberal/conservative he actually is, and while Thompson was good in office, I have this vague recollection it sort of fell apart when he left. Not the sort of person I would want in the White House. Richardson is playing it politically smart and staying clear of Hillary's long knives: he wants to run in the future and knows she'll make sure he can't ever run again anywhere if he challengers her this year. Rendell is a machine politician from Philadelphia, and can't make it without the machine, so he'll stay where he knows he can pull the levers.
So despite all the hoopla the MSM makes about the dog race, the front runners are all weak canidates. And the MSM will be happiest if they can keep us focused on our weak candidates so theirs will win the general election.
Heck, I'm not sure Fred would be a better executive than they would, but I'm already more inclined to vote for him than them. I couldn't vote for Reagan when he was first elected (I was too young), but I was pleasantly surprised by how well he did in office. I did of course pull the lever for him with gusto the second time around. Maybe Thompson will be the same kind of surprise.
Managed to destroy the Colorado Republican Party in one fell swoop by backing a $5,000,000,000 (yes billion) tax increase. In two years we went from Republicans holding the Governorship, both houses of the state legislature, a 5-2 edge in Congress critters, and both US Senators, to a Democrat governor, democrat control of both houses of the legislature, a 4-3 edge for the demos in congress critters, and a split in Senators.
with his position on changing TABOR. But otherwise he was quite successful and he was supportive of TABOR in the first place. And to pin the changing in CO politics entirely on GOV Owens would take a lot more evidence than you've presented so far. I believe GOVs can have that effect, but I don't think there is much evidence of that happening in CO.
The state has been moving left (with much of the Mountain West) as the Republicans have abandoned small government libertarianism and as many ex-Californians move there. Unless you can show the movement in CO as different from the movement in NV, MT, and other mountain west states, it thinks its wrong to pin it on Owens.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I can really consider voting for. Social conservatives like Brownback, Tancredo, and maybe Huckabee have good positions on the issues, but don't seem electable to me. Fred is reasonably conservative and has enough name recognition to secure the nomination.
6) Thompson is from Tennessee, the South or more accurately a border state, and thus well positioned to hold a number of Southern and border states in the general election. One of the problems with Giuliani and Romney is that they are Notheastern republicans, representing a wing of the party that has lost out to the South & West. I like Sanford and Jeb Bush, but neither of them shows signs of running. The only other southerner is Huckabee and he is not going anywhere.