The Hype and Allure of Fred Thompson
By HeavyM Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’ve got to be honest. I didn’t start caring about and following politics closely until 2000 - 7 years ago. Oh, I’m old enough to remember watching the 1996 campaign and election, but Bob Dole wasn’t exactly an inspiration to get into politics, and everyone knew Bill Clinton was going to win anyway. But maybe my youthfulness (at 27 years old) is a reason that I just can’t seem to see what other people see in Fred Thompson.
I can understand some of it. He a southerner. He's a "real" Christian (whatever that means). The field is lacking a “true” conservative (and whatever that means). He’s got the backing of a lot of ex-Congressional colleagues. But outside of that, I can’t help but thinking that Fred Thompson is a whole lot of hype. And I’m not trying to write a hit piece here, and I’m not writing this as a Romney supporter (because I honestly believe Fred actually helps Romney in this race by taking support from Rudy). I’m just writing as a politico who’s trying to be honest.
Here’s the deal: every one of our candidates (and the candidates on the left) has flaws that keep them from running away with this nomination. And Fred Thompson seems to me to be a compilation of many of those flaws. Please allow me to explain.
Folks have issues with McCain because of Campaign Finance Reform; Fred was a cosponsor of the bill and one of the main reasons it passed in the Senate.
People have issues with McCain because of his age; Fred looks and feels just as old, if not a whole lot older.
Folks have problems with McCain because he’s a Washington insider; Fred was a lobbyist for 18 years.
People have integrity issues with Giuliani; Fred also divorced his first wife. They have problems with Rudy’s stance on abortion; Fred is personally pro-choice in the first trimester and says government needs to respect a woman’s ability to make the decision for herself.
Speaking of abortion, folks have an issue with Romney because he’s a flip-flopper, especially on abortion; Fred has now changed his positions on abortion, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and probably some other things that will come out during the campaign.
Folks have problems with some of the candidates because they feel “phony”; Fred didn’t even own the red pickup truck he used during his first Senate run. He’d drive it a couple blocks away from events, hop into a luxury car and let one of his staffers drive the truck.
We criticize Barack Obama for a lack of experience; Fred has only served 1 1/2 terms in the Senate and has no executive experience. He’s a politician turned actor turned politician turned actor turned politician again.
We say we want to avoid party fatigue and nominate someone entirely different than Bush. In my estimate, Rudy and Mitt both fill that role. Fred, on the other hand, seems to be as close to being George Bush as you can get without being George Allen. (I do think that George Allen would have gotten far in this campaign had it not been for the “M” word, but I also believe that would have been to our detriment as a party.) Plus, Fred Thompson served on the advisory board for Scooter Libby’s defense team, something that will assuredly come up repeatedly in the general election, reminding people of the MSM-driven Bush legacy of corruption.
The deal with Fred Thompson seems to be the same deal with Barack Obama on the other side of the fence: right now, people can mold him into anything they want him to be. They need a conservative savior, and FDT can fill that role for them. Just as a piece of anecdotal evidence, I have a friend who has already said he will support Fred Thompson. I asked him what he knew about Fred’s positions and he could not tell me a single thing Thompson stood for other than, “Well, he’s a conservative.”
This is the hype and the allure of Fred Thompson I’m still trying to figure out.
Cross-posted from race42008.
It would help, when trying to convince people that you're not writing a "hit piece," if you would actually have your facts straight.
" Fred is personally pro-choice in the first trimester and says government needs to respect a woman’s ability to make the decision for herself."
Source? Perhaps you're confusing your own candidate with Mr. Thompson.
In 1996 his campaign filled out a questionaire that says he didn't believe in criminalizing it in the 1st trimester. Many pro-life people believe that a woman shouldn't be punished for it. This does not make him pro-choice. And it CERTAINLY does not indicate that he ever "says" that the "government needs to respect a woman's ability to make the decision for herself." He's said the exact opposite, in fact.
So if you want to write a credible "hit piece," rather than one based in fantasy, fact check. Or don't write it at all.
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
You might want to follow it as well:
Thompson in 1994: "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."
Also in 1996, he checked "no" on a questionnaire from Tennesseans for Choice (different than the other questionnaire being circulated) when asked if he favors criminalizing abortion.
During a debate in 1996, he said, the government should not "come in and criminalize, let's say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors."
And finally, in 1997, he sent a letter in which he wrote, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
If you want to support Fred Thompson, go for it. Pretending he's the great conservative savior of '08 is really kind of sad, though.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
You still haven't provided a source. It's simple to attribute something to someone, but sourcing is another thing entirely.
Mitt Romney: "I support abortion 100%. In fact, I love abortion." Come on. Give a source.
I already said he filled out the form in 1996 as such. So you can repeat that as if it's big/new news.
Finally, what you neglected in your original post was the fact that much about Thompson's views have CERTAINLY changed in over a decade. Instead you attributed (at this time) unsourced statements to him as if they were his current views. This is, of course, misleading. Labeling him as "pro-choice" or believing that the woman has the right to make the decision (those are the same things), based upon things he may have said over ten years ago, is ridiculous.
If you want to say he's pro-choice because of things he said many years ago, then by all means, let's do the same to Romney who only changed his views in the past 2 years. At least Thompson has a 100%, credible pro-life voting record throughout an eight year term in the Senate.
What has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the cause of the pro-life movement?
Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!
Romney or McCain or anyother candidate is neccesarrly a lot better than Thompson on conservative issues, it is just that he doesn't seem that different. A lot of people seem to be arguing that he is this conservative that gives everything conservatives want. The only difference I really see between Thompson and McCain is that Thompson has said that he is in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester, that he is against the current immigration bill even though at one time I think he was in favor of comprhensive immigration reform, and that he said that CFR wasn't perfect, even though I don't think he saw it as a freedom of speech issue.
http://www.gopprogress.com/story/2007/6/8/131354/1514
Liz points out that Thompson is A) a Federalist on abortion B)has supported abortions in the first trimester and C) that it's possible to have a good voting record and still be pro-choice.
"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain
The questionnaire above from Tennesseans for Choice is different than the other questionnaire he also filled out saying he was pro-choice, so there's no way it could have been a mistake or a slip-up or anything else Fred is going to try and get away with. We have at least five different occasions from Fred's past now where he is espousing pro-choice views in some fashion or another.
Romney and Fred Thompson both have solid pro-life records despite their past rhetoric; Romney as Governor of a deep blue state and Thompson as Senator from a deep red state. The point here is not that Thompson is bad on abortion (because he has evolved, or "flip-flopped" just like Giuliani and Romney has), but that Thompson is no better than Giuliani or Romney are.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
The hype is rooted in one primary thing: Communication. People think Fred will connect. People think Fred has the gravitas. This is what has so desperately been missing in recent years. I think it has people very hungry. Perhaps to the extent that they unknowingly seek overcorrection (the hype might indicate as much.)
But that does not mean Fred isn't the best choice. It just means he now has to live up to the hype. AND- People are more and more becoming convinced that his conservatism and his ability to connect and communicate fit the bill. And fulfill the demands of the hype.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
On John McCain.
Anyway, being able to present your message is a very needed trait in a candidate and president. If Thompson can use his acting abilities, and general southern folksy manner to woo a disenfranchised base... well he could win it.
"Diplomacy --- the art of saying "Nice doggie" 'til you can find a stick." Wynn Catlin