Politico: Fred! starting to talk to strategists, fundraisers
posted at 10:54 am on April 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
April 18 and May 4 are dates to circle, although a formal announcement isn’t expected until late next month — at the earliest. Assuming he announces at all, that is.
Which, it sure looks like he will:
Though Thompson has shown well in some polls since he said he was actively considering a presidential bid, the hurdles to such a late start are many. And some people who worked with him in the Senate question his willingness to do the brutal work of a national campaign. But friends and advisers say Thompson has been buoyed by the response so far at a time when many Republicans are openly expressing disappointment with their presidential field.
“The outreach to him has been so overwhelming that he is now starting to talk to people to really calibrate what it would take to run a successful campaign,’’ the adviser said. “He’s talking to some of the top unaligned strategists and fundraisers. He’s said: ‘I’m seriously considering it, and I’m happy to hear your thoughts and ideas.’”
Here’s your line of the day, courtesy of “Law & Order” producer Dick Wolf:
“Look, I’ve met every president since Nixon,” said Wolf, an independent who supported Bill Clinton. “When they focus their attention on you, it’s like a light goes on. They have this unique ability to make you feel like you’re the only one in the room.
“I don’t know if it’s a gift or a trick, but Fred’s got it.”
Wolf finds Thompson’s potential candidacy interesting. He’s even had conversations with him about it.
“We talked about it in the abstract,” Wolf recounted. “I said, ‘You should run.’ He said, ‘Really, why?’ I said, ‘Because I don’t think there’s anyone out there who can appeal to the base.’ ”
Wolf said he could easily see Thompson running and winning.
“When Fred Thompson walks in a room, people want to salute,” Wolf said.
Exit question: When will the first Fred campaign commercial featuring that line appear? I’m thinking September.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
But how will he be written out of L&O?
Enrique on April 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Osama’s saying, “Please don’t run Fred!”
Illegal Aliens are saying, “Please don’t run Fred!”
Please – Run – Fred
Zetterson on April 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM
So I guess now when the Republican party is in trouble they’ll go to an actor?
JasonG on April 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Fred Thompson heads to worst part of town, glares at it, and then no one ever dares commit a crime again. Thus the series ends.
frankj on April 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM
His previous record and opinions seem to show him to be a conservative. An ‘actual’ conservative voice, not a RINO. That immediately grabs my attention and causes me to look seriously at his possibilities. I would like to see him get into this race/debate.
dustoffmom on April 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Fred Thompson is the new Chuck Norris?
bj1126 on April 6, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I know nothing about Fred Thompson? Why do ya’ll like him so much?
tikvah on April 6, 2007 at 11:06 AM
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 6, 2007 at 11:06 AM
That first sentence was supposed to be a statement, of course, not a question. Anyway. I’m interested to hear why he’s so popular here.
tikvah on April 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Well, to be fair, he was a lawyer first.
Wait…
Slublog on April 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Speed it up, Fred.
rplat on April 6, 2007 at 11:11 AM
draftfredthompson.com has a few sections on his previous voting record as a Senator from Tennessee, his statements and opinions, info on his work on the Watergate committee, etc. Not the only source of info on FDT but a good start with multiple links….that is if you are really interested that is.
dustoffmom on April 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM
He’s generically “folksy” and thus presumptively anti-elitist, which is (often overly) important to righties. And he does seem to be a genuinely committed conservative on the issues, if you don’t count campaign finance reform.
Allahpundit on April 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Dream Team: Fred for Prez, JC Watts for VP. Hit the left where it hurts, heh.
Crusader on April 6, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Fred! should always be referred to in third person (proper). I am offended by uses of He or Him, unless followed by the !
He is in – unacceptable
He! is in – acceptable
Fred! is in – preferred
Assuming he announces at all, that is. – unacceptable
Assuming He! announces …. –acceptable
Assuming Fred! announces – perferred.
lorien1973 on April 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Or tort reform, as I recall.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
lorien1973 on April 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Yes. And the peasants…rejoice!
IrishEi on April 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
He also happens to be a former senator.
Run, Uncle Fred!, Run! I have my checkbook ready. I’ve never given money to a campaign before, but I can’t wait to write that check.
Matticus Finch on April 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Its a sure sign of the weakness of the current field that Fred Thompson is a putative front runner before he even formally announces.
That said, I’m intrigued and would be interested in a clear description of his views on the issues that are important to the GOP primary electorate: the War, judges, taxes and regulation, and abortion. OK, that’s my list of issues in rough order, but still…
Fred on April 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Why would he have to be written out? If he were a liberal, he’d be allowed to merge his role with his campaign – vaguely analogous to the Dems putting forth their agenda in Geena Davis’ Commander In Chief.
Actually, since the entertainment industry is liberal, he’ll likely be written out with some incredibly sordid, putrid scandal they’d barely get past Standards and Practices.
eeyore on April 6, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Should he run? Yes! I am very optimistic with what the GOP will be offering up for the 2008 choice. Fred, Mitt, Rudy. Hey Dems, we’re gonna kick your ass!
soulsirkus on April 6, 2007 at 11:25 AM
As a Tennessean, I can say that Fred! is VERY popular here. He comes across as honest and down-to-Earth. Acting aside, his values and ideals are in the right place. I’d vote for him in a hearbeat. And let’s face it–I honestly don’t think we have much of a chance against The Saviour and Shrillery in ‘08.
robblefarian on April 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I’m very interested in a possible Fred Thompson Presidency. I have a feeling that the Clinton and Obama camps are very nervous about this possibility.
And I don’t understand this problem that liberals have with his acting career. Liberals have been puting actors on political soapboxes for years, listening to them tell us how we should live. I would think they would welcome an actor as President. So what, he has a life outside of politics. Sounds good to me.
hoosierken on April 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
It is a Good Friday!
Limerick on April 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Campaign finance reform makes him conservative. Opposing reform makes him a Republican. The two overlap but are not one in the same.
Theworldisnotenough on April 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Allah dropped the “!” for one post I beleive. I wonder why…
Theworldisnotenough on April 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Fred Thompson on European Disarmament
Fred Thompson On Illegal Immigration
“Fred Thompson on Supporting our Troops”
“Fred Thompson speech given 9/16/01″
Draft Fred Thompson
heroyalwhyness on April 6, 2007 at 11:33 AM
That depends on who produces it, and where it airs.
Bryan on April 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Good one Limerick!
I like Fred because he is the true conservative in this group. He always has been with no BS about him. I like Thompson/Steele personally for the Republican ticket.
Rudy is going to crumble because he totes so much liberal baggage with him. Govt sponsored abortions- he’s done. No way to explain your way out of that view.
Mitt is crashing and burning on the varmit hunting experience (twice isn’t a lifelong hunter even though it was 40 years between the two outings) and this is casting light on his gun control stance. See ya.
Newt could add some interest and I like him, but is he really electable? I don’t know the answer to that.
Have a good Good Friday!
doginblack on April 6, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Trying to keep all the troops happy. One of the previous threads indicated a tiny bit of “!” fatigue.
eeyore on April 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM
If Fred gets in, who will bet that Fred’s campaign raising event will become the biggest and fastest cash raising event ever?
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Well if Fred! is gonna run he needs a Barney!
/any suggestions?
LakeRuins on April 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Hey Crusader, what happened to J.C. Watts? I thought he retired from politics. I could have missed it, but I like J.C.
doginblack on April 6, 2007 at 11:41 AM
About the “Fred!” thing. I can imagine the Leftist will be writing “Fred?” just to show how clueless they really are.
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Glad to see your cynicism hasn’t melted in spring thaw. His Tennessee accent and mannerisms are of no importance to me compared to his portrayal of integrity. But those are outward personal qualities only–I’m liking him more for the words he’s using than how he says them.
Anwyn on April 6, 2007 at 11:43 AM
To be fair Allah, I think you’re putting too much stock in the ‘folksy’ appeal. Let’s be honest, the real reason is because there isn’t a solid conservative in the field, and Fred’s looking like the only one without mountains of baggage, toxic poll numbers and a personality that many find abrasive *cough*Newt*cough*.
Many conservatives have decided that Congress and Bush have sold them out, that they’re insistence on caving to liberal policies or special interests like big biz on immigration, they want the real thing if they can get it. Fred looks real. I think they’d settle for a Giuliani or Romney (I don’t think they’d accept McCain) as long as those two can control how many times they kick sand in the bases’ faces. I don’t think its nearly as much a ‘we want a folksy southern guy’ as you seem to think. I’m a damn yankee for the record.
Bad Candy on April 6, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Off/On Topic
I just had this feeling – Shrill soon says to Oby: “You try and win this, and I’ll bury your campaign so deep CSI won’t be able to find it. But if you just run your Happyface campaign, #2 is yours…”
Whaddayathink?
eeyore on April 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Late show last night had the George M. Cohan story… it was amazing how we used to be a patriotic country… How our media and stars would actualy support, instead of tear down, our country.
There are a LOT of “simple” people out there who are not involved in Politics… and Fred! speaks to them in plain language with no “nuance”… If he can tap into the Law and Order Pro America majority out there? he’s a shoe in for President.
Romeo13 on April 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM
He’s about the only conservative candidate I have any desire to vote for as of right now. He’d better make his move soon or he might not have enough time to build up a base of support.
Yakko77 on April 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
What do you think Bill Clinton is? He’s nothing more than a mob boss doing a fantastic acting job. Name a Democratic candidate who’s not an actor.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
And it’s important to note that most Democrats would immediately orgasm upon hearing that people such as Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, or George Clooney were thinking of running for President.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Fred! was immersed in the cesspool of Hollywood liberalism and still remained conservative.
That counts for something if he returns to liberal D.C.
Valiant on April 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Nancy Pelosi thinks she’s President already – isn’t that acting JasonG? Even though some said already that Fred! was a lawyer first, he in fact was drafted by Hollywood to play the role based on his real job of prosecutor on a difficult case, after they weren’t successful in finding a perfect fit. Thus his first stint with sin-city. Here’s a bit more about his life, acting being a nice/lucrative diversion.
I’ve seen him often on C-Span and met him in person at the San Jose Airport in Dec. 1999. He doesn’t come across folksy. He’s a huge figure, cordial, and, above all, he has an indolent confidence about him. This is both non-threatening and assuring.
The Left don’t want him to run – sensing from the comments, the office, on airplanes, the media, TV-talking heads.
Unless he killed someone, nothing in his past will matter because the existing field, left and right, is so ‘human’ and ‘perfect’.
“Law and Order” will have to stop being shown while he is President. There’s a law about that, but I’d have to research the particulars…He would lose $100,000, I believe for filming 2 such shows…but the country and the world need you Fred!
No one will hate his running/winning more than the terrorists.
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Well, put me down as skeptical regarding a Thompson presidency. This puts it as well as anything so far.
The office of the Presidency is not a good place to train for being an executive. I still am not convinced that the man wouldn’t start dialing in after the first 3 years of relentless badgering by the Washington press and the opposition. Has he ever had to put up with continual frustration? Last time he dealt with frustration in Washington, he folded. Left. I don’t blame him one bit, but then he was just a Senator, not the head of the Republican party.
This is, I think, where all this Fred! stuff is coming from:
And finally, to sum up:
Reagan’s gone home folks. He was a singular man for a singular time. Maybe we have another man like him in the works, but Thompson ain’t it. Or at least, there’s no real, substantive reason to believe he’s it. Reagan worked tirelessly in the conservative trenches for decades, step-by-step to the Presidency. Thompson’s being crowned high king of conservatism without ever really fighting for it.
He has the form of Reagan’s appeal without the substance of Reagan’s dedication.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
HEAR ME NOW:
JANE’S PREDICTION (on March 29th) WAS THAT FRED THOMPSON WANTS NOTHING MORE THAN TO BE A PRESIDENTIAL UNDERSTUDY.
Hide and watch—Fred Thompson is shilling for John McCain. Nothing more.
seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
After six years of a language challenged Republican President, the mere facts that Fred! is 1)conservative and 2)articulate and pleasant to listen to are just about enough for me. The one concern is his apparent lack of management experience. He’ll need a good team.
kmcguire on April 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM
spmat, your concerns are valid. However, historically men have grown into the role, when the times and their country needed them. This is one of those times. One of my favorite Presidents in this regard is Harry Truman, a good old Democrat. We know that story.
On communication and media relations, he’d be tops. Again, indolent and confident. Can’t beat the combination. The independents would also vote for him in large numbers.
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
seejanemom, your theory would have a future if Mr. McCain had the remotest chance. He is ’spent’ in AP’s words and his time in history is just gone. We should always honor him for his service to this country in Vietnam, for his years in the Senate, even if we disagree with some of his stands, and his incredible effort to get this Mr. Bush reelected. Otherwise, for him it’s over.
P.S. I often read your articles an no one can say it as straight-forwardly as you can. Thank you for your dedication and for your family’s service to this country.
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Interesting theory, but I think Fred! truly believes he has a shot. That’s not to say he wouldn’t settle for VP if offered down the road, but for now, I believe he sees himself as President Fred!
Rick on April 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I can’t recall offhand where I read this, but if it were correct, they would have to cease showing any Law and Order episodes that he appears in once he declares official candidacy. The “equal time” rule would then apply and if they showed it they would have to give any and all opposing candidates the same amount of air time. I believe I do recall seeing some of Reagan’s old films aired once he was elected, but I could be wrong about that.
dustoffmom on April 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I had a thought about who Fred! might choose as VEEP. Now, I love the idea of a Fred!/Steele ticket, but I can see how a Fred!/McCain ticket could garner a LOT of votes.
For moderates that aren’t too sure about Fred!, having McCain as VEEP might work well as he would be seen as someone they can vote for because the ‘maverick’ is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Darksean on April 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Oh good lord! McCain?? They may be great friends, reportedly, but they are worlds apart philosophically.
dustoffmom on April 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Spmat, your comment is incredibly inaccurate. First off, you might actually spend some time researching what Fred Thompson has done. Aside from the obvious weirdness of the suggestion that U.S. Senator is not a “high-level executive in Government”, Thompson has also been a commissioner of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Also, via USCC.gov,
Is that all? No.
Also via USCC.gov,
Now … let me ask you this? If being elected a U.S. Senator is not considered a “high-level executive position in government” … what does that say about Giuliani?
Does being elected Mayor of New York City somehow make you more qualified than Thompson’s accomplishments? And what about John McCain? Or Romney? Using your qualification meter … Thompson is possibly the ONLY qualified candidate.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 1:27 PM
You lost me right there. Legislators are not executives. Heads of commissions are not executives, either.
Yes. Mayors are executives. They’re part of the executive branch of government.
Senators are not executives. Senators live in the world of give and take, deal-making and arm-twisting. I won’t say that legislative experience is of no use to an executive (Johnson was a master manipulator of Congress, given his tenure there), but I will say that it is not sufficient preparation for the pressure of an executive position.
Legislators do not have to make unilateral decisions. The buck doesn’t stop with them. They are not responsible individually for the decisions made by Congress as a whole. They can as easily abstain from a vote as make a decision, and all such actions are equally valid in a legislative sense. Executives cannot abstain. They have to make decisions. Sometimes without full information, in the crucible of the moment, and if they make a mistake, they will hear about it over and over and over again for months or even years (see the past 4 years of WMD schadenfreude).
Giuliani has proven himself to be a qualified executive. Look at New York now. Then read about the New York when he got there. Look at New York post 9-11. Rudy is a brilliant executive. I don’t like his politics, but he could fill the Oval Office and make it run. His greatest flaw in this sense is that he’s never run a business from the inside, never done high-level damage control in that environment.
Same as Thompson. Even worse, IMO. He’s been a legislator so long, I don’t know if he even knows any more how to make a snap decision.
The only fully qualified executive in the race. He’s been a successful businessman, accomplished wonders in his business-government crossover role at the 1996 Olympics, and he’s been a successful governor of a true-blue state. He knows how to make decisions. Now, I’m not firmly convinced that I would like all of his decisions, but that’s a different discussion. Under discussion is qualification as an executive.
Not logical. My qualification meter under discussion has to do with executive experience. Thompson has very little.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Thank you so much, Entelechy. My HH is a Marine’s Marine though I am no hero, I thank you for the sentiment. IT MATTERS that you feel that way.xoxo
And McCain is a HERO’S HERO, no question, and I give him his due for that, but I do believe that his day is done as you said. BUT NOT IF HE CAN GET FRED THOMPSON to do the heavy lifting for him, then bow out and throw his votes McCain’s way. CLASSIC MOVE.
As for those WHO DARE THINK McCain’s EGO would tolerate being a second to ANYone, you are WAAAAY off that base. McCain thinks its “his turn” to be the top of the ticket. EGO MANIACS are funny that way.
Thompson as McCain’s VP.
That’s Jane’s story and she’s sticking to it.
seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Almost seems Reagan-isc doesn’t it? Although I wouldn’t go that far, but your comment is spot on. Happy Good Friday and Easter.
Kini on April 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Different day, different age. The media of his day were still operating under the maxim of “do no harm” with regards to national security. Neither he nor his policies would have survived the modern media, except insofar as those policies agreed with their goals as leftists.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Heh. Mayors are figurheads. Governors are the true executives. I guess Gavin Newsome of San Francisco is qualified to be President, huh? Or, how about Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Heather Fargo of Sacramento, Richard Daley of Chicago, Bill white of Houston, or Laura Miller of Dallas.
Makes sense to me.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
JasonG wrote: “So I guess now when the Republican party is in trouble they’ll go to an actor?”
Well, arguably, the greatest President of the post war era, Ronald Reagan, was ALSO an actor — before he was elected governor of California and ran for President.
georgej on April 6, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Ack, 2002 Olympics. Me == idiot.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Go for it Fred. What’s the worst that can happen? You wouldn’t get elected. If you don’t run you wouldn’t get elected either so you’re no worse off.
Mojave Mark on April 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Population of New York City: 8,213,839
Population of Georgia: 9,072,576
Population of Arkansas: 2,673,400
Now, considering this fact:
And considering that New York is one of a handful of hubs of the world economy, I would say that the man that is able to completely revitalize and guide such a place through the worst attack in our nation’s history by the strength of his decision-making abilities is a qualified executive.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Really? He did all that? That’s an amazing accomplishment for a man who’s term as Mayor ended three months after the attack.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Yes, as much as any one man may be given credit for such an accomplishment, he can. It wasn’t a matter of length of time. The amount of damage done by bad decision-making in such a situation is exponentially worse, the closer to the event you get. So, the time to be strong, to project an image of strength and resolve, to lead, is September 12th.
The issue of time lines aside, I’m not saying that Thompson can’t do these things. I’m not saying he couldn’t be a good executive. I’m saying that we have no reason to believe that he will be a good executive.
Love covereth a multitude of sins. Wishful thinking makes a Rembrandt out of a blank slate.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Ronald Reagan demonstrated that it takes a Class-B actor to make a Class-A President. I think Fred can do it.
DR Good on April 6, 2007 at 2:41 PM
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/mccain_myth.htm
There are always two sides…
Romeo13 on April 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM
And we really have no reason to believe he’s not. Or do you? Can you give us some indication that Thompson is not, or would not be a good executive? Anything at all?
And apparently, you’re more interested in electing an executive who admits to being on the opposite side of almost every conservative issue. I’m wondering what good it is to elect a great executive, if all that power will be used against you.
I’m guessing you would admit that Bill Clinton is a great executive. So what? Did that “help you” or “hurt you” if you’re a conservative?
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM
And before you go on and on about all the great things Rudy did for New York, it’s important to remind voters that “great things” to citizens of NY City are not remotely close to what conservatives feel to be great. These are the same voters who elected Hillary Clinton twice and overwhelmingly supported John Kerry immediately after being at ground zero of the worst terrorist attack in US history. Seems to me that it’s counter productive to rely on how New Yorkers feel about Giuliani’s job performance.
Here’s what matters:
Amnesty – overwhelmingly supports
Increase in immigration – overwhelmingly supports
Federally funded abortion – supports
Federally funded stem cell research – supports
Gay marriage – supports same sex, federally recognized unions
2nd Amendment – will gladly violate the 2nd amendment if it reduces crime
NAFTA – supports
ASSUMING that Giuliani IS in fact a “great executive”, do conservatives really want to put a great executive into office who is going to be fighting for these goals?
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Well, If Fred! runs, I’ll be writing him a check or five. And probably volunteering to work locally on his campaign.
None of the other front-runners will ever see a cent from me. If Fred! doesn’t run, then I’ll send Duncan Hunter some money but won’t have much expectation of it doing any good.
LegendHasIt on April 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Isn’t it ironic to see that Fred! acts in a show called “Law and Order” wherby this country is in dire need of law and order. And it would require the stature and recognizance of Fred! to help ensure law and order in the United States. None of the weaslely BS stuff when it comes to our National security here and abroad.
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Should Fred! run, will the producer of Law and Order insert references about Fred!’s character wanting to wish he’d be the president of the United States? Boy, talk about increasing the Nelson rating.
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM
sorry…so excited I left out my “?” marks in my earlier sentences.
:)
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Suppose Fred! already did the acting and mentions something along the line about himself wishing he’d be president?
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:39 PM
….before Fred! announces his candidacy, I mean.
Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Is that really how low you want to set the bar? Simply assume someone is a good chief executive lacking any proof to the contrary? Don’t you think the burden should be on the candidate to make that case for him/herself?
honora on April 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Why not? You folks have done that for every one of your candidates for every office, high to low, for every election since 1960 (if not earlier).
What’s sauce for you gooses can be sause for the ganders.
LegendHasIt on April 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM
The lack of negative evidence is not proof of positive results. I wouldn’t automatically assume an investment was sound without some track record of positive performance. Why should I assume that Thompson would make a good executive when I have no real reason to? It is inescapable that his lack of executive experience is a negative. As I said before, the Oval Office is not a place to train. It is a place to perform.
Also, Thompson has never really had to deal with many real political frustrations. His run for the Senate was largely uncontested. Once he got there, he was elevated, in spite of his junior status, to committee chairmanships and immediately groomed for bigger things. He’s a golden boy. The Fred! thing here demonstrates that.
Reagan spent decades in the trenches, first in 1964 (losing campaign), then as Governor of California, then in 1976 (losing campaing), finally to achieve success in 1980, with a long string of success and failure for the conservative principles he actively fought for. He kicked and scratched his way to the top. He wanted to be President, because he wanted to be a conservative leader.
Thompson hasn’t even entered the race yet. To my knowledge, the only issue he’s ever actively fought for is campaign finance. I fail to see how he’s earned the laurels that so many are so desperate to throw at him. He’s generally a conservative, sure, and he’s charismatic. But does that mean he wants to lead the conservative movement? Heck, does that even mean he wants to lead the Republican party? I just don’t know.
No, I wouldn’t admit that Clinton was a great executive. He was a lackluster governor that dragged his Arkansas corruption with him to Washington. Once there, he was famous for making as few real decisions as possible, passing the blame whenever he could. I would say that his two terms as governor made him more qualified as an executive than Thompson, yes.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM
By the way, I’m being deliberately harsh on Thompson. Sort of playing devil’s advocate. I by no means believe him to be unqualified to run in ‘08. I want him to run. I think he could make a good President, assuming he surrounds himself with the right people. I’m just trying to point out the very real negatives to his candidacy.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 4:09 PM
You did a great job of taking my quote out of context. I did not suggest that we should assume anything. I suggested that there is no reason to believe Thompson would not make a good executive. That is not an assumption. It is fact. Again, can you give me some example of evidence that he would NOT?
As for setting the bar low …
What exactly would you call voting for someone you already know for a fact to be against almost everything you stand for, simply because he seems to be a good executive?
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Heh. See reply to Honora above. Same answer.
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Not a valid response.
Would you invest in something that does not have a positive track record? Something that is unknown is an inherent risk. Thompson has no track record of substantive executive leadership. He has no track record for taking the reins and leading on any conservative issues, either, unless you call campaign finance a conservative issue. Or trying to block meaningful Tort reform.
Thompson’s conservative bona fides, such as they are, are not associated with his leadership. He’s been called a “moderate” Senator in the past.
He’s even been a bit of a limp fish on Bush’s judicial appointments.
That’s really something when you’re considered more moderate than Trent Lott.
He’s presidential material, but he’s not a silver bullet.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM
“does not have a positive track record?”
You’re suggesting that Thompson does not have a positive track record? How so? At the same time, you’re suggesting that we vote for a person who has a proven NEGATIVE track record on most conservative issues. Somehow, you feel more comfortable voting for the proven negative, rather than for a man who most indications suggest that he leans positive.
So … your theory is that it’s better to KNOW you’re going to fail, rather than take a chance with someone who MIGHT succeed.
Brilliant. Using your “investment” analogy, you’re suggesting that it’s better to vote on the a dead horse rather than a new horse with great promise, because at least you know what you’re getting with the corpse.
Once again, you’re going to have a really tough time getting past these basic truths of who Giuliani really is:
I’m not really sure how you turn all that garbage into a “positive.”
Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Oh for goodness sake, Gregor. Never mind.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM
To win in 2008 we have a huge task ahead. First and foremost our candidate is going to have a reunify a GOP that is in the midst of a serious exodus of it’s conservative base then our candidate is going to have to garner votes from the conservative and moderate Democrats who are scared to death of Hillary and Obama.
Giuliani isn’t going to reunify the party with his message of open borders amnesty, gun grabbing, abortion loving, gay union support although if he went soft on the war he might steal some votes from the left’s nutroot base.
McCain is just done. Nuff said.
Mitt might reunify the party to some degree, maybe enough maybe not. I’ve been listening to him and like what I hear.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have good messages and I like them both but even I don’t think they’ll get the nomination, reunify the party or get traction with the blue dogs if they did get nominated.
I don’t think Fred is a silver bullet and I harbor no thought that he is another Reagan but at this point in time I think he’s the best chance we have to keep the White House in 2008. He can communicate, his messages resonate beyond the conservative borders in ideology. If he runs I will give him my money and my time.
Buzzy on April 6, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Fred! has claimed in several interviews that he doesn’t hunt for the “Reaganesque” apellation. When questioned by Hannity if he wished to assume the Reagan mantle, his response was on the order of, “If you mean by the Reagan ‘mantle’, a characteristic of speaking simply and honestly about what I believe, what I want to accomplish, and how it should be accomplished, then I suppose I’d say yes.”
The man has been deeply involved in politics in an extensive variety of venues for well over 30 years. For anyone to suggest a lack of experience is nearly laughable. He was a lobbyist for nearly two decades, seeking to roll back destructive regulations instituted by both Johnson and Nixon, and had to fight with/against both sides of the aisle on a regular basis.
And these days, when asked a question, you get a real answer. Not a canned political ad. Every time I’ve heard Mitt Romney answer a question lately, it starts with, “As you know, while Governor I signed into law ….”
You don’t get that from Fred. You get his mind and his heart. The fact is that he believes in the Constitution, and would work to prevent its further erosion. Compared to every other “frontrunning” candidate available from either party, that’s more than enough for me.
I like both Hunter and Tancredo, and would hope for a Fred Thompson nominee to select one or the other as VP. I like Michael Steele as well, but he is more of an unknown quantity than either of them.
Gregor, well said.
Freelancer on April 6, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Yes, YOU are a HERO!!! All in the Military Services are heroes. All who have a family know they couldn’t do what they do if their family wouldn’t heroically support them. Often they credit their families with more suffering and agony than what they go through, due to their ‘family’ and team away from home. The rest of us better appreciate and never forget this!!! We get to do whatever we want, including blathering here, while you all protect our freedoms.
I agree with your take on “egos” but here is another reason why McCain is not improving, but rather diminishing, his chances, which are already nearly all gone.
Happy Easter to you Jane, and family, and all on this site, and their loved ones. You too Kini. Aloha!
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I should have been more clear. Someone, above, stated that the L & O series with Fred! in them can not be shown during his Presidency.
Of course they can show all they want ahead of his announcement, even if he filmed his announcement in one of the shows. I’m sure the Left would threaten to sue someone…at least for 24 hours…
FT can ignore their sorry arses. When he ran for Senator he drove his pickup truck through the entire state of Tennessee, in a flannel shirt, shook hudreds of thousands of hands. I remember catching the news when he won and the media showing him in these modest poses. I alos vaguely remember him driving that pickup to Wash. D.C. as a symbolic reminder of who’d brung him. This is a guy who will get lots of support and money from the average folks. No doubt he’ll also be supported by the pockets of the ‘bad’ rich conservatives.
That entire back/fro on his executive experience is just an exercise. Two things which matter:
1. Will he fight the terrorists?
2. Is he electable?
My take on both is a resounding “Yes” and I’m sticking to this story, Jane :)
The only other one, in the picture so far, who gets the “Yes” is RG.
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Bless You , Entelchy. REALLY.
Morale in the services is so battered because of the MSM that if not for kind and sincere well wishes from GOOD PATRIOTS like yourself, there are days when we would just pack it all in and let the ungrateful masses drown in their own soup.
Happy Easter and Blessed be your Season of Atonement.
seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I read through all of that, and in the end?
Well, it is Good Friday after all, so let me just say this, the day Fred jumps in, is the day I give up the receipe for “sour mash BBQ”!
That way, all of us, can invite Fred and the Mrs. to our own fire side chat……
A Blessed Easter to you all………
PinkyBigglesworth on April 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I did not quote you in full, but I don’t think what I quoted misrepresented what you said at all. My apologies if it does.
But look at what you are saying: you’re saying the burden of proof is to prove X is not incapable. Which effectively is an assumption–until proven otherwise, assume he is capable.
I don’t suggest you vote for someone whose views are anathema to you under any circumstances. But isn’t this apples and oranges?
honora on April 7, 2007 at 8:44 AM
I always find it amusing when people who are of one political bent and very disdainful of the opposing bent, use the actions of the opponents to justify taking those same actions. How is this remotely logical?
honora on April 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Honora, you’re not allowed to make that point because, as a representative of the morally depraved and hypocritical left-wing political machine, you don’t have the moral authority to do so. (Or something like that.) Are we clear?
Anyhow: I can identify w/your sentiment as long as you’re talking about specific folks (who may be inconsistent) and not all or even most of us on this board. None of us speaks for anyone else, and I never make that assumption of anyone else, even you :-)
And I’ll certainly never insinuate anyone like Gregor (or anyone else) is guilty of inconsistency unless they’ve made a big deal in the past about Kerry’s, Obama’s or Hillary’s lack of executive experience. What we have here is people arguing past each other, not being flagrantly inconsistent. But that’s just My Opinion… apples & oranges indeed.
RD on April 7, 2007 at 2:25 PM
And I’m always amused when people who think that they are so brilliant and intellectual can’t grasp simple sacrasm when it is incoming instead of outgoing.
LegendHasIt on April 7, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I still don’t know what the big deal is about Fred. I think Mitt Romney has a much stronger background as far as running a budget and controlling fiscal policy. Although Fred might know more about foreign policy I believe you need more than that. However, that being said, I think a Romney/Thompson ticket would be unstoppable.
calirighty on April 8, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Comment pages: