11 Comments

I am unconvinced that the typical Republican voter is yearning for “the new new thing” in politics. It is the pundit who is bored silly. McCain was on life support a month ago now he is alive and well. What goes?

Just wait. Be an early FOF (Friend of Fred).

Thompson has the kind of avuncular presence that is deeply reassuring. He would make a formidable candidate.

Fred Thompson was a senator who left no meaningful footprint in Congress. “Avuncular” does not equate to judgement, character, vision, courage or decisiveness. Being an actor is acting out one’s lines, playing a role; being the top dog DA in some crime series. Ronald Reagan, after being an actor, espoused a vision as
the governor of California showing himself as decisive and committed to the principles of conservatism. So much parfait for the pundits; today Robert Novak, Roger Simon, Friday was Peggy Noonan in Journal. Ho hummm !

“parfait,” etc.

Jedrury, are you a Weekly Standard opinionist?

Roger: the Novak hyperlink is wrong.

As long as Fred Thompson continues to speak with directness (what used to be called honesty), he will become the candidate to beat, and most likely the next president.

Yes, I am so tired of hearing the same politically correct answers to the same politically correct questions…

Be a leader or get out of the race…

Let us consider the current candidates who have “Left meaningful footprints” in either the Senate or the House, shall we, jedrury? Let’s see: Obama, Clinton, Edwards-hardly left a trace of a track. Kucinich? Giuliani, Romney? Nope. That leaves McCain, and Newt if he chooses to run. Woops, I’m (appropriately)ignoring Biden and Dodd.

Meaningful footprint leavers or not, the House/Senate are poor historical springboards from which to leap to the Presidency.

I’m not holding Thompson’s acting against him. He has hardly been a lightweight attorney (remember Watergate?) and it is increasingly clear he has a clarity of vision of considerable merit, and likely the abilities and connections to deliver thereon.

A gruelling campaign is a young man’s game.

McCain (bless him) is too old and too much of a maverick. Fred, who is very appealing, has neither the energy nor the resume. Rudy is hard headed enough to make a good President in a time of war and might win an election but conservatives will only support him if there is no other viable conservative candidate. He has stumbled badly out of the gate.

There is someone else worth mentioning. He too is appealing, tough, hard headed about GWOT, experienced and young.

I’m smitten by Mitten. The more I see of him the more I like.

TomTom:

A meaningful footprint in Congress would surely have added a gravitas and credentials to Thompson rather than his stentorian voice and wooden presence on TV. He is Hollywood’s inexpensive alternative to Gene Hackman as the admiral back on ship or the DA boss back as headquarters approving a plea deal. I do recall Watergate; he played the same walk on bit part to Sam Dash, he was Howard Baker’s boy. As an attorney, he was no heavy lifter like Guiliani. His “clarity of vision of considerable merit,” pales before Rudi and McCain. He is the media alternative to the others. Alternatives tend to shine in the half light before scrutiny and campaigning.

I don’t give a flip for “gravitas”(that bestirs op-ed writers I no longer read) or that he’s a “Wooden presence on TV”. Perhaps you should turn the TV off, jedrury!

TomTom:

Your affection for Fred is obvious. If I or the rest of American voters turn off the TV, where will Fred be. Without a record, without a legislative footprint, he is nada.