"We do not need Fred Thompson."
(Yes, it's a theory. Not mine, mind you.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Republican Party does not want Fred Thompson. We were dissatisfied with current field, but last Thursday's "debate" has assured us that our next President is one of that bunch. There is no need for Mr. Thompson to give up his lucrative television career to serve the country, as we'd be fine with any of the 9 would-be Reagans or Rudy.
Okay, this is news to me too, but a Republican consultant has told the San Francisco Chronicle that this is so:
[O]ther Republican consultants think the debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley (Ventura County) introduced many of the current candidates to the country for the first time and might have stolen some of Thompson's thunder.
"Fred might see that after the debate, a little of the vacuum has been filled," veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy said.
Again, that was not a debate. America did not know that debate would take place, much less that it was televised, or where, at what time, or why. Of those who knew these things, I'd venture that most of those watched something else anyway.
Read More...
For those of us who watched the debate, I've seen lots of different views of who "won." No one won.
I saw Fred Thompson speak to the Orange County Lincoln Club at President Reagan's library last night by accident. At midnight ET, I flipped channels in bed and there was a fellow introducing him. My wife remarked that it this was serendipity, and we watched.
Ronald Reagan could have given that speech, or one like it, except perhaps for one of the anecdotes. Fred Thompson talked of being a young lawyer when California Governor Reagan came to a hall to deliver a speech. He and Thompson were discussing this and that, and the governor asked him what he thought he should tell the crowd. Thompson recalls that he mumbled a few things, and President Reagan walked out and gave a barnburner. Thompson recalls that Reagan mentioned the things Thompson had said to him, almost in Fred's own words.
"He had me for life."
But alas, Mike Murphy said that little watched television drama, featuring Chrissy Matthews and a sportscaster, has ended the Fred Thompson phenomenon:
Word is that Murphy's a great media guy, though, and a pretty good strategist. Where could his head be?
Perhaps Bob Novak told us told us back in 2005:
Indeed, Romney's preparation for 2008 is more advanced than any of his potential Republican rivals.
While he recently spoke in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, Romney's Commonwealth fund has raised and distributed $225,000, concentrated in three early primary states: Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan.
This early campaign is being put together by famed political consultant Mike Murphy, who is California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's closest political adviser and who worked for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000.
Romney? McCain?
Bob Novak again, later in 2005:
Campaign consultant Mike Murphy, who has been handling Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's exploration of a presidential candidacy, will not run Romney's campaign if Sen. John McCain enters the race.
Murphy worked on McCain's 2000 campaign, but is not on good terms with the senator's current political advisers. However, he says he will not work for any candidate opposing McCain.
That's an odd position. He won't work for McCain because he doesn't get along with the chief McCainiacs but he won't work for those opposing McCain. A few months after the latter Novak column, though, Murphy was advising Florida Governor Jeb Bush on the Terri Schiavo matter.
Of course, last December, Murphy opined in the Los Angeles Times that President Bush should draft Joe Biden (and others) to help run the Iraq war.
Then again, Murphy is a hired gun, albeit one who now can afford to be selective.
So do we toss the notion that the Thursday night thing took the air out the Thompson campaign before it has formed? Again, few watched the debate; it was chained to a corpse (MSNBC). The format did not allow a single candidate to emerge as the replacement for Thompson. (Yes, we're thinking about a "next Fred Thompson" when, in this race, that has not been a first.) And Thompson doesn't need to be replaced. His candidacy is still hypothetical.
For me, the Thursday event made clear that I would like to see a Fred Thompson candidacy, to see what it would do for the party. The speech Friday night made clear that a Fred Thompson candidacy is exactly what this party needs.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Fred!'s Speech to the Orange County Lincoln Club — Comments (9) »
"We do not need Fred Thompson." 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
was delivered with Thompson's speech to the Lincoln Club last night. It is not in the prepared remarks, so it is now obvious that he can whip out some great stories, extemporaneously.
Depends on what you are looking for in our next President I guess.
The current crop of Presidential timber has been around a while and they all bring the promise of something new and not new, most of which we have seen in one form or the other in the failures of the past few years.
Failures like a run away budget, failure to deal with the looming social security mess and yes to some extent a failed execution of a war in the middle east, side stepping the whole philosophical issue of should be have even kicked over that ant hill.
Along comes the promise of Fred Thompson who has been out of the mistake making business, whoops I mean congress, for a while. He's plain spoken, he's fresh, and maybe the antidote to the ails of the party. Goodness knows that the prospect of more of the same old same old dysfunctional Republican leadership seen over the last few years is going to be a hard sell to the general public.
Maybe bringing a new/old product to market might fix what ails the Republican brand. If this past November proved nothing else, it proved that the American people's taste for Republican brand of governance was down, which is not to say that they like the Democrat brand any better, just that the taste in the mouth was getting a bit sour.
Offer up the American people a big serving of "Same Old Republican" brand as the standard bearer for President and you might just see a Democrat in the White House unless there a good dose of FUD served to convince them that the Democrat brand causes warts or something.
Is Fred that new brand, that new taste, who knows?
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Joe Scarborough has an intresting take on Beltway verus Heartland Republicans and the debate. Although I do not agree with Murphy, I think Thompson supporters who think he is better off staying out of the fray are misguided.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18439344/
You may not like the present field persnally, but some of these guys are going to gain traction. Remember, Mitt raised six million in one day before people ever really saw him. Post debate, the traffic on his website has nearly doubled. McCain is also starting to reassure conservatives by doubling down on the war. Thompson supporters underestimate the present field at the own peril.
I like Fred Thompson, and he's presently my second choice for '08 President after Duncan Hunter. My concern right now is this: What are Fred Thompson's "skeletons in the closet" that we don't even know about yet? Nobody is truly perfect, but I wonder if maybe Fred Thompson hasn't officially decided to run for the '08 Presidency yet because of something bad about him of which he may end up either talking about himself or somebody else may end up talking about at some point down the road? There are already people looking for any serious "negative political/personal dirt" to use against Fred Thompson as well as against all of the other candidates for President, and this is nothing new in politics.
In this new media age, I think one thing that strategists on both sides of the isle have learned is that it is better to get your skeletons out and confront your detractors early. Both Clinton and Bush nearly lost, but ultimately survived because of this.
Republicans and Americans in general can be judgemental and harsh, but they get tired of beating a dead horse and are ultimately forgiving.
The delay in announcing his candidacy for president has nothing to do with "skeletons in his closet" which is a concern of johnthebaptistmoore. He has contractual conflicts with NBC for Law & Order and cannot do anything until the end of this month, perhaps the beginning of June, until those conflicts expire.
IMO, there were only a couple of candidates at the debate that spoke with any real meat. Had Fred Thompson been in that debate, I believe he would have stepped out to the forefront to the American people as compared to the others. I'll be glad when he puts his name in the hat. He's my number 1 choice because I don't think any of these other GOP candidates have what it takes to win out over the Dems.
... Fred Dalton Thompson. I know some of the people who were on that stage Thursday night would look better in different formats, a on-on-one against a Dhimm candidate for instance, but I couldn't help thinking after the "debate" that if all Sally Sixpack who doesn't follow politics had to go on was that "debate" and some Obama clips she'd vote for Obama.
with the fact that there will be no more Ronald Reagans.It's unrealistic to except another President with the greatness of a Ronald Reagan because thats a once in a lifetime thing. It's like the NBA won't be having any more Michael Jordans anytime soon. The Republicans have produced three great Presidents in
my opinion and one near great President. (1) Lincoln (2) Teddy Roosevelt (3) Reagan and Eisenhower was the nearly great.
Thompson would be a fine President but he shouldn't be expected to meet the expectations of a Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt.I hope he runs but we will be ok without him.
the next President, Republican or Democrat, won't be near as good as George W. Bush. I have come to terms with that, but it still leaves a ton of room for them to be good Presidents (well, unless they're Democrats, of course ;)) and to get our support (ditto).
I'm changing my registration to Democrat & voting for Hillary.
Seriously.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
People are way too harsh on W. Given the circumstances, he was excellent president. Our moral compass, security, economy flourished in the most trying of times. Ironically, governing with a Republican congress is more difficult for a Republican executive. Its easy to say no. Its tough to appease all the people in your majority party. In this sense, his job was much tougher than Reagan's.
The good parts first...
W gets a B on tax cuts. He got them initially passed but never made them permanent.
Roberts and Alito. The jury is out on the long term impact on the Court, but I would give him an A for those two choices. Overall, on the judiciary, I give him a C-. The very idea that HM could be considered to be a qualified nominee for SCOTUS is just scary. And his efforts on getting his appellate nominees out of committee is just pathetic. Then there's the G14 that he didn't bother to take anybody to the woodshed over. In the end, R&A will hopefully be excellent and there's nothing Bush could have done to improve those two nominees.
Foreign policy and the war. I agree for the most part with his foreign policy and I agree than we should have gone to war with Iraq. I think he's done a very poor job of selling the war to the American people and of defending his rationale for going to war in the first place. I'm not happy with the way we've engaged the enemy in Iraq, I am more in tune with Grant and Sherman and Patton than in Bush's kinder-gentler-war. Overall, an A on concept and a D on execution.
On relations with the Congress and on domestic policy he gets an F. This NewTone™ has cost him the confidence of the people. He allows the snakes to bite and never wimpers. Homeland security and the whole 911 Commission is an absolute joke. Just what we need, a bigger bureaucracy to ensure our security. That is a disaster waiting to happen.
Did I mention George Tenet?
Then there's amnesty for 12 million people and their extended families who are just doing those jobs Americans won't do.
Then there's No Child Left Behind.
Then there's not bothering to bring the Republicans in the Congress on board before he decides to "do something" about entitlements. And when we do do something, it's a prescription drug program that more than doubles in cost in three weeks after it's passed.
Did I mention the Farm Bill? Or the Highway Bill?
I choked on the comment that Its tough to appease all the people in your majority party. Excuse me, we elect a President to LEAD not to appease. And, BTW, it may be easy for you to say "no", but it sure hasn't proven to be easy for Bush to do that.
In terms of leadership, GWB has been an empty suit. Easily the worst President since Carter.
We can do better. We have to do better.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
alot of things. He's way too soft on immigration and he wastes money like a drunken sailor.He also allowed Hugo Chavez to become a regional power broker in our backyard. I support his war on terror but he is not a fiscal conservative and he neglected Latin American and now communism has again taken root in our backyard this time with oil money behind it.
Perot he would have been a two term President. In my opinion Bush 41 was a better President than Bush 43. The reason is clear to me Bush 41 surrounded himself with much seasoned advisors(except Dan Quayle) than our current President has. Cheney though unpopular was a good choice for Vice President at the time. Rumsfeld was also a good choice however he stuck around to long.
H.W. Bush was a great man, but mediocre politician. People down on W must remember that he carried Republicans in 2000, 2002 and 2004. H.W. lacked the charm to a good campaigner and had a little too much of that rockefeller Republican in him to be effective. The old school Republican who raised taxes and tried to negotiate with Democrats, while Democrats were waging a culture war and playing no holds bar.
We got crushed and then we started playing by their rules. Newt, Ralph Reed and W cam along and also started playing no holds bar politics. I think its generational. H.W Bush represented the old steady Eisenhower and Nixon Republican. The type of Republicans who got their butts kicked for 40 years. W saw how his father was treated and fought fire with fire with bold actions and blowing off the media and not entertaining Democrats.
That's why they hate him so much. He was a winner who basically said I don't need to kowtow to the MSM or Democrats.
Eisenhower did absolutely nothing to build the party or advance the cause. The old patrician Republicans were nice men, but didnt understand the fight. Liberals were doing the little things like focusing on ground games, infiltrating institutions like the academia, schools and the media, and were way ahead of the curve on judges. After Eisenhower, the liberals had a 40 year march, which was checked every now and then by a status quo Republicana. Yeah, they really kicked or butts. Reagan was great, but the liberal march that started post McCarthy really didnt end until 1994.
were more conservative than the Republicans especially in the South. I was more referring to Eisenhower the general than Eisenhower the President. Eisenhower did understand the fight back then it was the cold war not the cultural war that we had to be more concerned with at that time.The beatnicks which were the proto-types for the hippie peace movement was only in it's infancy and only in very small numbers in places like New York City during the late 1950's and early 1960's. The age of Vietnam , flower power, and radical feminism was the beginning of the modern cultural war. JFK even cut taxes and Truman was a very conservative democrat.
He won in '88 on a platform of "I'll be just like Reagan only I'll be a lot nicer and won't scare the bejeezus out of the Soviets." He lost in '92 because he thought he was owed a second term and never, so far as I could tell, engaged in the campaign until it was way too late.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
there is no vaccuum. we have at least 3 options that are 100 times better than the pitiful collection of frontrunners the Democrats have assembled (including one, Giuliani, that I could no more vote for than one of the Democrats). We have at least 6 that are more serious than anybody the Dems have to offer (excepting perhaps Richardson).
that said, I welcome Fred to the race (if he ever enters, that is), and would vote for him if he's our nominee.
but I don't see anything that he brings that sets him apart or above from the rest of the field. and I still haven't gotten one person to answer my concerns: 1) that he effectively neutralize one of the strongest arguments against any of the leading Democrats, that their claims to become the Most Powerful Man (sic) in the World rest almost solely on very brief Senate careers, and 2) if he's the ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE, why did John Dean hope Bush would nominate him to SCOTUS because he wasn't so conservative? (and I'm already anticipating the "to take him out of the running for President because he was the biggest threat!" nonsense, so don't even try it; he was less on the POTUS radar screen at the time than he was even for SCOTUS).
or Rudy Giuliani you would just as soon see the Democrat get the White House.So I guess you don't really care much about our troops do you.
in the general, I would probably vote for Rudy, but would do so with the enthusiasm that I clean my toilet.
was I and knew that you were also a warrier at heart.
"In addition to the Spartiates, several other Greek city-states sent troops to Thermopylae to defend against Xerxes' army. The city of Thespiae which was located in Boeotia, dispatched a contingent of 700 warriors which comprised a significant portion of their army. This band of warriors were led by Demophilus, the son of Diadromes."
"It was on the third and final day of the Battle of Thermopylae that the remnants of the Thespian contingent, while not the equivalent of the Spartans in training, armor, weaponry and tactics, fought and died alongside the remaining Spartiates to the bitter end. In the process, these valiant Greek warriors inflicted heavy casualties upon the Persian forces before succumbing to attrition. For this action, the city of Thespiae received the same fate as the city of Athens by being burned to the ground by the invading Persian army."
http://www.300spartanwarriors.com/battleofthermopylae/the700thespians.ht...
The 700 Thespians
If only Rudy could have been pro-life then we wouldn't have even needed this primary because he would have had at least 75% support.
even if he had taken the easily available federalism route, he'd probably walk away with it. he still wouldn't be my first choice (or my primary choice under almost any circumstance, though I readily concede I'd be in the vast minority there) but I'd be far, far less uncomfortable with him.
(and to clarify my last post, which for the 2nd time wasn't as clear as I'd have liked (I'm tired for some reason today): remove "probably". and the toilet reference is meant to say it is something I'd do because it must be done, an unenjoyable duty, but a duty nonetheless. please believe any more "colorful" interpretation was not meant).
Why Rudy Giuliani Really Shouldn’t be President by Jim Sleeper
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2007/mar/08/why_rudy_giuliani_...
Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Guiliani by Wayne Barrett.
http://www.amazon.com/Rudy-Investigative-Biography-Rudolph-Guiliani/dp/0... oks&qid=1174014380&s r=1-24
The Full Rudy: The Man, the Myth, the Mania by Jack Newfield
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rudy-Mayo...856764-0047156
Guiliani says manufacturers deliberately make 6-7 times too many guns
http://www.nysrpa.org/blog/?p=788
Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illusion-Untold-Story-Giuliani/dp/0060536608...
I say this without checking but with fondness.
The Locrians had an admirable custom. Whenever a bill or law was proposed in their assembly they would fasten a noose around the neck of of the petitioner. If passed the noose was removed, if not, well the one who proposed the law had better not have brought his lunch.
Not all good customs survive the test and ravages of time.
Whatever the depth of my erudition thanks for the classical reference, a reminder of the past is like a fresh breeze and the aroma of flowers.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
over any Democrat, but I'd have no enthusiasm for it. He's a prosecutor at heart and had a good understanding of how to get the cops to clean up the cesspool that was NYC at the time. Prosecutors also tend not to like any judge with an exagerated sense of his importance and a willingness to dispense his own brand of justice, so he'd be at least OK on judges. That said, the whole 9-11 thing has been mythologized and nobody will look at a whole bunch of things that should never have happened. Give him credit for standing up and taking charge after the fact; he was a leader when one was desperately needed, but while we're at it, we should also look at radios that wouldn't talk to each other, command and control failures in the police and fire response, and lots of other stuff.
Fundamentally, only in a really Blue place like NY would he even be a Republican.
In Vino Veritas
We need far more judicial discretion due to the over crowded prison system. In the last 30 Prosecutors have been given to much power.
When a candidate's ex-wife will campaign for him and his running mates are left only with combing through property records, that's nothing but sheer desperation folks...gnats swarming around an old horse as a wise man recently said.
Even Liberals are left with attempting to suggest an actor's role defines his personal views...Now, that's beyond foil hats.
Before today, I never heard of Mikey Murphy but, he's tallying up a real name for himself. Offering Joe Biden up for any kind of assistance is the same as advice to wear blinders when landing a plane. Then, in realizing a certain defeat for his choice of candidate, he lashes out in crass observation so transparently unfounded the image of a baby and his rattle comes to the mind's eye.
Perhaps, his next perception will include putting Gore in charge of narcotics seizures.
Under these circumstances, I'ld suggest a lack of concern for a paycheck might be explained as coming from the opposition.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and the sincerity of Hollywood." - FDT
he runs. He's like a star NFL player holding out during the season due to contact negotiations and believe me that gets old quick and will back fire on Fred he needs to run now or he will suffer at the polls because people are committing early this time.
No bashing of Democrats, no pandering, just tell it like it is.
That's what's been missing from this race.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
the cold hand of, the Grim Reaper, and represents a part of the human anatomy that I would be censured for mentioning.
He is the fool who helped McCain lose to Bush in the primaries, pushing campaign funding reform. An issue that was a poison to most Republican voters. Not satisfied with that debacle he then signed on with Rick Lazio in his campaign against The Whale in her campaign for the open NY Senate seat.
Proving that he has the flexibility of a pretzel he then got Lazio to make campaign funding a central issue of his campaign, which issue went over like the Hindenburg landing in Lakehurst NJ.
Lazio was ruined by Murphy.
From that race a quote from strategist Murphy; "we have a fabulous three weeks in the can that we're about to uncork,---this thing is planned like D-Day".
Three weeks later Lazio, a good, decent and capable man, lost to Fatso by 12 to 15 points.
And Murphy is still running loose, and still carrying the plague.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
... but check out Fred Thompson's speech last Friday:
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/05/fred-thompson-speaks-to-oc-lincol...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.