On my way to work, Laura Ingraham had Fred Thompson on her radio show. I've heard his name before, so I knew he's on some legal/cop show like CSI or Law & Order but I'm not really sure which (No, CSI is the one with the fattened-up Thor, so Fred must be on Law & Order). And I knew he was in Congress somewhere. Laura said he was a former Senator from Tennesee, so there you go. That's everything I knew about Fred Thompson before this morning.
As I listened to him, and as Laura tried to recruit him into running for President, I liked his voice. It's deep and resonant, the kind of voice that makes all the other male Presidential candidates sound like wussy-boys and that makes Hillary sound like a shrew. No wait, she sounds like a shrew with or without Fred Thompson.
And then I saw this column in today's The American Daily (HT: WorldNetDaily) about drafting Fred Thompson for the GOP Presidential race. It's like a media vortex pulling all the attention in one direction. Where have I been that I missed it--besides work and school and coming back to work until all hours?
Liberal cheeks are puckering all over this country, including at RNC headquarters, at the prospects of a Fred Thompson presidential campaign. The last good-ole-boy conservative actor turned presidential candidate became the most universally beloved US President of the 20th century!
Traditionally liberal rags like the NY and LA Times are talking about the conservative quake underway at the RNC on a daily basis. RNC leadership seems baffled at the news that their hand-chosen liberal frontrunners are meeting with a less than exuberant welcome from the party faithful. They just aren’t used to constituents telling them what to do and they are not so sure they like it.
Even Republican talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, seem agitated that they are unable to anoint Rudy Giuliani, who is having trouble connecting with conservatives over his liberal social values.
For a change, conservatives seem awake and engaged in the primary process of selecting themselves a real “people’s” candidate for ’08, instead of waiting for RNC leadership to anoint another lackluster RINO, compassionate towards liberal values and policies. As a result, there appears to be a growing national conservative movement to recruit Fred Thompson.
I liked what I heard from Fred Thompson on Laura Ingraham's show this morning, though it's not enough for me to be able to make an informed decision just yet (should he choose to run). But this little bit of dialogue from the show is an example of what I liked:
Laura: Is Albert Gonzales doing a good job?
Fred: No.
He didn't preface it with the usual political-hack's, "Now, I have great respect for the guy, but..." He just said no. It's a simple word. It's a word people understand. It's not couched in disclaimered language that has to be parsed out, analyzed, crunched, interpreted, and fed back to the people in almost-recognizable form. I like knowing that when a candidate (and subsequent office-holder) says something, he means it and I know exactly what he means.
If Fred Thompson decides to run for President, and if his policies are in line with where I stand, I may take my current front-runner, Mitt Romney, and toss him aside like yesterday's puppy poop (we still have Zeus). We'll just have to wait and see...
2 comments:
Yes, the Thompson directness is incredibly refreshing. It's also compelling to hear a candidate not only couch his positions in comfortable common-sense, but also in such ideaological terms.
Ideaology is frankly what so many Republicans are missing - particularly the frontrunners. Ideaology is what made Reagan Reagan - it's the bulwark of strength that gives a leader the most chance of sticking to his guns when all the pressures of office try to break him loose.
The pressure to "grow"(turn liberal) in office is great, for many reasons. Living in the beltway bubble and hoping the press and your friends say good things about you are one reason why, and getting drunk on the ease of "doing things" with your power, and getting positive responses from special interests, is another.
Ideaology is the glue that can bind a person in place and help them avoid this temptation. And apparently, it's not ony the best glue, but perhaps the only glue. It's certainly how Reagan got as far as he did and accomplished such a revolution in American politics and the world stage.
The ideologue is less likely to "grow" in office because he has a strong belief in principles that he obviously really understands(hence his ideaological strength). He understands the principles(I don't think most Republicans really do), and he wants to fight for those principles and is unlikely to "bend" because "it's easier to" or because he wants to "be liked" - very real pressures on any politician.
I believe Mr. Thompson has this ideaological core, instilled by a love of the original intent of America as laid out by the Founders, which is very Conservative/Libertarian in scope.
And just as good, like Reagan, Fred Thompson as the ability to COMMUNICATE these idealogical beliefs to the nation as a whole, and get people to really listen, pay attention and consider these things. That's a real gift, and is something none of the second-tier candidates, who may be ideaological, have.
I'm very excited about a prospect of a Fred Thompson candidacy. Anybody who loves this country and the original intent of its system of government should be.
Anon,
You've said that so well. I'll have to start paying better attention...
Post a Comment