Fred Thompson’s Appeal?
Posted on July 8th, 2007 in Politics | 6 Comments »
Can someone please explain to me what appeal Fred Thompson has to conservatives? I’ve heard some people out there salivating at the idea of Fred running for president, and I don’t really see anything about him that appeals to me. My impression is that he’s a cookie-cutter conservative Republican, in Ronald Regan sense, but I don’t see much that distinguishes him from anyone else.
Of course, he was the man in The Hunt for Red October.
6 Responses
Tom
Part of Thompson’s appeal is that he is not desparate to run. He will run if he thinks he can do 2 things:
1) Win, and
2) Contribute something signaficant to the United States.
It is not difficult to find out where Thompson stands on any issue. He is plain spoken, and is not appologetic about the positions he takes. The one thing that moves me toward Thompson over Ron Paul is that I do not think that Paul is correct on the war on terror.
Also, if you want more, check out a book called The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill. Steve is a local talk radio guy, and has known Fred for a while.
Paul
So, the fact that the man is a neocon globalist lobbyist , who favors affirmative action, is meaningless, just because he “can win”? Thompson will “contribute” nothing to the United States that Bush hasn’t already ruined, and we’ll end up with more of the same.
However, if you agree with Thompson on the illegal occupying police action in Iraq, there’s little hope to convince you that Paul is correct. The “walk loudly and carry a limp stick” strategy of world domination hasn’t worked yet.
I did not say I support Thompdson just because I think he can win. Back in 2000, I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary, and was pretty sure that he would not win the nomination, but hoping that enough support would give him a shot at running mate.
As to the war, I detect that you are possibly comparing it to Viet Nam. At this point, I don’t think that there are enough similarities to make that a justifiable comparison. i do not think that we have had a mindset to win, which is why we still are where we are, however, we can win, if Bush et al, would stop bowing to the Democrats, and the press. Based on what I have been told by friends and family that are actually in Iraq, we should be there, and should not leave until we are done.
I would like to know how you see Thompson is a “neocon globalist”. I was unaware that he supported affirmitive action, but am aware that he support Mc Cain Fiengold, an issue I differ with him on.
For me, there is not a single candidate I completely agree with on every issue. I disagree with some more than others. I gave up trying to find a candidate that I agreed with 100% long ago.
I really can’t make much of a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, except that both are part of a neocon philosophy of foreign intervention based on false threats. In Vietnam, we had to be over there to stop the horrible domino effect of Asian nations succumbing to the communist regimes. We left, and it never happened.
Now, we’re over in Iraq based on a supposed terrorist threat that never existed, and making ourselves more of a target of terrorist attacks due to our interventionist, nation-building, neocon globalist philosophy. And Fred Thompson buys right into it.
He’ll be Bush Jr. Jr. if he makes it into the White House, and we’ll continue to have a presidency not based on any sort of values, but frightened pragmatism and fear mongering masquerading as patriotism.
One thing that needs to be understood is that affirmative action, McCain Feingold, the income tax, and foreign policy are not just disparate “issues” that we go through like a checklist and see where they stand. All the candidates, save one, have a philosophy of the federal government fixing whatever problems they see in the world. Sure, Obama and Hillary see different problems and have different solutions than Guiliani, Thompson and Romney, but they all have a philosophy that the Federal government needs to fix it.
Ron Paul is not just different on the issues… he’s has a different (and more constitutional) philosophy of smaller federal government, and he actually has a track record of working towards it. I’ve seen no such track record from any other candidate, including those who claim to support a smaller federal government.
All the good things I’ve heard about Thompson have to do with how much he reminds people of Reagan.
I can’t actually remember all the points of comparison, but:
1. He communicates well.
2. He’s an actor.
So, next Ronald Reagan apparently.
I hear the same thing, Austin. Although, Ronald Reagan had a bit more of a track record before he was elected president. I don’t know much about Thompson at all, except for the interviews I’ve seen, and I don’t see much there that impresses me.
The one sad comparison that Thompson has with other “conservatives” like Reagan and Newt Gingrich is that he’s been married multiple times. It really bugs me that people who preach “family values” can’t make it a point to keep their marriages together.
I’ll be posting another article about Fred Thompson soon… it might make people think again.