Tuesday, April 24, 2007
|
|
Is Fred Thompson's Style Old Fashioned?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:46 AM
|
|
I keep trying to self-analyze exactly why I'm not buying into the Fred Thompson hype.
Logically, I would argue that 1. His popularity has more to do with discontent over the current crop of GOP candidates than with him, and 2. His record, while fine, is not substantially more conservative than the other candidates.
So it appears to me that the main thing a lot of conservatives like about him is ... style.
Ironically, this is precisely the area where (I believe) Thompson is weak. Let me explain...
Back around 1999/2000, a co-worker of mine at the Leadership Institute (who has gone on to do some pretty cool stuff, by the way) kept telling me how "uber" cool "Rummy" was. (I didn't see it, but because this seemed to be the consensus, I didn't question it, either.)
To him, "Rummy" was appealing because he was a "take-charge" tough-as-nails guy. To me, he was an old "my-way-or-the-highway" kind of guy who would be a "turn-off" to average folks. Turns out: I was right (at least, I'm claiming credit, here...) Lesson learned: Go with your gut ...
I feel the same way about Thompson today as I did about Rummy in 2000; while everyone else is talking about what a stud he is, I just don't see it.
What I do see is a guy who carries himself as someone who has "been there and done that." And while that Gary Cooper demeanor may appeal to many conservatives, I think that after a few years in the White House, it would be a huge "turn off" to everyone else. In short, while that "tough guy" shtick may have worked in the past, I'm just not sure it will sell in today's world (maybe he needs John Edwards hair ... just kidding!)
... By the way, if you think I'm exaggerating about the level of adoration many conservatives are displaying toward him, here's an example of the first comment his post on Federalism got over at FRedState, yesterday:
Thank you, Fred, for explaining a vote that has been very easy for some to contrue anyway they wish (depending on what they are trying to get out of it). Hearing it straight from the source is quite helpful and encouraging!
Federalism is like truth... it hurts sometimes but it always works.
But while many conservative blog readers obviously love him, my question ultimately is: Is Fred Thompson too Gary Cooper for a Leonardo DiCaprio world?
Of course, I realize it is odd for me to say that I don't think a movie star has the right "style" or temperament for today's world. That's okay. I'm open to debate on the subject.
So go ahead. Make my day!
|
|
"Of course, I realize it is odd for me to say that I don't think a movie star has the right "style" or temperament for today's world. That's okay. I'm open to debate on the subject.
So go ahead. Make my day!"
So far, I seen no attempt on Lewis' behalf to debate his many detractors. I guess this was just one of the cliches that he strings together and calls it commentary.
By the way, "old fashioned" Fred has a regular blog. Have you seen it, Matthew?
|
|
This post didn't make much sense to me.
So who out there is more conservative than Fred Thompson? Not McCain. Not Rudy. Romney? Well, I guess that depends if you mean Romney this year, last year, or five years ago. I have a hunch (and it is only a hunch) that Lewis is a Romneyite. All the establishment, inside the beltway types are In Love with Mitt.
Personally, I feel Thompson might be just the guy that could unite conservatives. McCain is burned out. Romney just has too many similarities to GWB (former gov., silverspoon, MBA, compassionate conservative etc.) to suit me. I love Rudy (despite his stances on social issues) but I worry that he could fracture the base.
What's NOT to like about Fred Thompson? My gosh, I am just happy to hear a GOP candidate mention the word federalism! Nobody even talks about it anymore.
So, unless you think Ron Paul can get elected (*guffaws and snickers*), I think FreddY T is starting to look like a pretty good (our best?) option. |
|
I did read the article but have to admit scanning more than reading in depth. I have to since there is so much to read these days.
As far as which generation will pick the next president...I don't know the numbers but I'm willing to bet the MTV generation is going to be important. We are up in our 40s now and will play a decisive role.
Woe to the party that ignores such a huge segment of the electorate. |
|
Fred Thompson is like Gary Cooper, but Gary Cooper is not a "tough guy." The comparison is confused; Gary Cooper is laconic, rugged, and gets what he wants by being a "presence" for good. Maybe Matt meant he's like John Wayne. I'm not sure I understand his point.
A Gary-Cooper type should wear very well on the American public. Thompson has a kind of "well, maybe, but here's what I think" quality that is very un-tough-guy. He's like your "good" grandfather who has strong and thoughtful opinions but doesn't force them on anyone, or get upset if you disagree. Unflappable. Just sits and listens and doesn't judge you, but comes back with a few words that try to nudge you his way. Maybe you're fishing with him.
Kind of an informed Reagan. I like it. If we're bragging about presience, I called him as a future president a long time ago. Then I figured he didn't want it. I don't exactly know why he's back on the political radar after so many years, but he's my John McCain this time around. |
|
I think you'll find that most of the folks who are jumping on Matt here feel the same way as you about the GOP. It's why we find Fred! so refreshing.
No, what galls us is the prospect of the MTV generation like Matt having any influence whatsoever on the direction of the Party or who should and shouldn't be POTUS.
Did you read his post? It looks like he found a rough draft of a script for a Seinfield episode that had been put through a shredder, and pieced it back together. And HE wants to lecture on style? |
|
I had the gall to question Thompson's style in another forum and people jumped on me as a troll, secret operative etc. I wasn't saying that I wouldn't support the guy eventually, but expressing reservations about his cornpone way of saying things.
It comes across as insincere and pandering to me.
I see you're getting some of the same accusations.
Folks, I'm an independent so I don't have any particular party to support. The only "party" I care about in the upcoming elections is America. Now, as a pro war independent, I find it hard to imagine I will vote Democrat in the next election, BUT, I seem to be an exception to the rule.
The Republican party has failed miserably recently in allowing the momentum to shift so dramatically to the Democrats. From my perspective, the Republicans come across as weak and indecisive. If you want to elect the next president, you need to get over that.
As a party, you need to start with honest dialogue and get yourself a strong, and moderate candidate. If you can't have a civil conversation about somebody's presentation style, how are you going to elect the next president?
|
|
Magnificus beat me to it, again, and phrased it better.
Fred has it. He can tell people what it is, and how it's going to be, and people (honest people) appreciate that he is telling the truth. He makes his case well and stands by it. How many other candidates would be willing to put as much in writing before an election as he has?
A DiCrapio world is the last thing we want, or need.
|
|
|
Who the he// is Leonardo DiCaprio and who really cares about him ('cept his mama)? Just kidding. It's not a Gary Cooper World OR a Leonardo DiCaprio world - it's a very dangerous world and this country needs a strong, principled leader right now and for the future. If you look at FDT's record, he's conservative (moreso than any of the current three - yes even your beloved McCain). Why any conservative (note I didn't say Republican) would vote for any of the three so-called front runners is beyond me. One has flipped like Flipper, the other wears his liberalism on his sleeve and the third has stabbed conservatives in the back one too many times (McCain-Feingold, Enemy Combatants & interrogation, and the piece de resistance... the gang (that couldn't shoot straight) of 14). Here the Republican party had both houses of congress AND the Presidency and we STILL couldn't get OUR judges on the bench (Alito/Roberts notwithstanding). A crying shame! No, Thompson is a straight talking, conservative/federalist who, when and if he gets in the race, will suck the life (and money) out of the the others and blow the doors of the Dems. I said it before and I'll say it again - just picture him in a debate with ANY of the current crap... er, crop of candidates. Can you spell BLOODBATH with the country watching? Yep, Run Fred, Run. |
|
Matt Lewis has written yet another snarky post directed at a GOP candidate whose last name is NOT spelled M-c-C-a-i-n ??
I'm shocked---totally shocked.
As Townhall readers have seen, Matt is constantly slamming Rudy & Mitt for what he believes are their lack of conservative principles.
Yet, on the other hand, here's Fred Thompson---a guy who has generated a lot of interest among the conservative base---and Matt casually dismisses HIM as perhaps TOO committed to his principles, a la Donald Rumsfeld.
Additionally, just on Monday, Matt provided the transcript of his chat with Vic Gold, in which Matt was championing John McCain for being a "contrarian."
Obviously, it suggests that Matt likes a contrarian.
Yet a day later, here's Matt dismissing Thompson with "...while that "tough guy" shtick may have worked in the past, I'm just not sure it will sell in today's world..."
So to summarize;
When Rudy & Mitt don't stick to conservative prinicples enough, it's a negative.
Yet when Fred Thompson STICKS to his conservative principles, it's a negative.
Matt also believes that when McCain sticks to his guns, it makes McCain a principled "contrarian."
Yet when Thompson sticks to his guns, Matt is "...just not sure it will sell in today's world..."
Ultimately, since Matt is a McCain supporter, it just sounds like no matter what any other candidate does, Matt will find a reason to publicly be dismissive of his candidacy.
If he were doing a coin toss, I'm sure would say, "If it is heads, then McCain wins; and if it is tails, then everyone NOT named McCain loses !"
At the conclusion of his post, Matt writes;
"...my question ultimately is: Is Fred Thompson too Gary Cooper for a Leonardo DiCaprio world?"
Perhaps Matt will kindly step up to the plate and inform us how he perceives his candidate John McCain to measure up within the context of a "Leonardo DiCaprio world."
|
|
You ask..."Are we sliding ignominiously into a "Leonardo DiCaprio World"
Not in our lifetimes! The current crap er I meant crop (really) in Hollywierd are destined to be dragged from their estates and hung out to dry on Barbra Streisands clothesline.
And they're gonna need more than Cheryl Crows "one little square for man...one giant finger to mankind" philosophy to clean up after themselves when the Gun-toters decide there's more to be made robbing a few movie stars than in robbing everybody who lives in East LA.
I am a firm believer that you reap what you sow. Which means the Hollywierd crowd is in deep doo-doo.
|
|
And the Massachusetts Flip Flopping ex-governor doesn't have it...perfect hair and good looks, OK, but not charisma.
One of the basic building blocks for every charismatic leader is the ability to tell the people the truth and, to have them appreciate you have given them the truth, good or bad.
Telling people what they want to hear, or being whatever it is they want you to be at any given time is what makes a good politician. That is why there is so much pandering at play leading up to elections.
And it is why not very many politicians are great leaders. They lack the charisma to lead.
It is how true leaders have rallied their people throughout time. William Wallace had it.
FDR had it. Ronald Wilson Reagan had it and now, Fred Thompson has it.
Nice try Matt, if only you didn't lack charisma you might have made the Fred-Heads change party, not just candidates.
PS
The Dems would do well to remember without the truth you have nothing! They might say their guy has "it"...but just saying so, doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Let's just state the simple facts: If Fred Thompson runs for president in 2008, he will win! Some of the other Republican candidates are good people, but I believe none has more than an outside chance of winning the presidency. And if one of today's front runners should garner the Republican nomination, would we have a true conservative heading the ticket, or another RINO? I do hope Fred Thompson does run. He's our best hope by far. |
|
|
I have this to say I like Fred for his (style) it conveys a stand and deliver attitude not cut and run that so many Republican have done.I would vote for Fred in a heart beat. I live in McCains state and It makes me crazy at all the times he didn't back President Bush, when as a conservative he should have. Gooo Fred |
|
I am not quite sure why you do not consider Fred Thompson a conservative. Have you checked out his voting record?
Here is a link:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
He is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense... He believes in lower taxes... He is what this country needs.
If your issue with Rummy is that he was not open enough to change, once his mind had been made up about something... That is not a characteristic of Mr. Thompson. Fred supported McCain/Feingold back in the day and has since stated that it did not work as planned and that he is rethinking the issue. He is very capable of reconsidering his own choices when things work out differently than they were supposed to.
Mr. Thompson is a thoughtful, intelligent, down-to-earth man with convictions. He is an excellent communicator and is not afraid to defend republican principles when few others do. He is plain-spoken and upfront. Many see in him a genuineness that speaks right to their hearts. "What you see is what you get" is hard to come by in the political world, and Fred oozes it. He is just what we need... Someone who can go to the American people and explain things in a way that they "get it." He is not afraid to be a conservative. He is not caught up in this politically correct environment that Washington DC has become. He tells it like it is, and he shows the common sense and value in the conservative train of thought. Even when it could hurt him politically, like defending Scooter Libby, Mr. Thompson is honest about how he sees things. And that is refreshing.
If conservative = old fashioned, then so be it. There is nothing wrong with old-fashioned. We need to get back to our core values... We need to be more like Ronald Reagan's party.
Have you read Fred's commentaries from The Paul Harvey Show? They are recent, and I have no doubt that they would show you how conservative he is... He is strong, and strong is not a bad thing when the world is in chaos. Clinton was not strong, and we were seen as a paper tiger. We need a strong man or woman in the White House. There is nothing wrong with being tough, as long as you have common sense to back it up.
Fred isn't a born politician. He hasn't dreamed of being president since he was five years old. He senses that things are going in the wrong direction, and he is finding himself called to help fix things. That is honorable. He cares more about this country than his own ambition. He will not sacrifice his values and beliefs just to get the office. That is one of his greatest appeals to his supporters, and I believe that it will be appealing to the general population once Mr. Thompson officially joins the race.
I would also suggest that you watch the Fox News interview with Chris Wallace to get an idea of this man... and that you check out old speeches and info on youtube. You will find a wealth of information there. Fred can LEAD...
Please take the time to research this candidate, and I believe that you will be pleasantly surprised.
One more link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/528aylls.asp?pg=1
|
|
Just because he worked for Howard Baker doesn't make him a Baker protoge. And what's wrong with Howard Baker? I think he served admirably and was a principled leader. Hardly a prima donna as you would describe his protoge.
I suggest you read Stephen Hayes' profile of FDT in the Weekly Standard for a more complete picture of the man. |
|
He's a BAKER protoge, for crying out loud. He's more Lamar Alexander than Ronald Reagan.
I think we can find a winner from the current crop. We don't need another prima donna quasi-conservative to save us from ourselves. |
|
|
If you could just take a minute and envision what it would be like with each of the current crop of candidates as POTUS, you will soon realize how slim the pickings actually are, and why "old fashioned" is exactly what this country needs right now. When (...when, not if) Fred Thompson announces his intentions to run for POTUS, you will hear a giant sigh of relief (and many cheers!) from the Republican base, and weeping and gnashing of teeth from the rest of the candidates...in both parties. |
|
...and that's "character".
I realize it's going to be hard to recognize - we haven't seen much of it lately.
But it matters.
It matters a great deal.
Or Ted Kennedy would be President.
And, while we're here, I have an "Ultimate Question" that I'd like answered:
Are we sliding ignominiously into a "Leonardo DiCaprio World" - for lack of enough Gary Coopers?
- MuscleDaddy |
|
So who is Matt Lewis? Is he just a McCain flunkie, as one commenter has suggested? If so, the good Senator is wasting precious campaign cash. One has to have a modicum of respect for a volunteer, though.
I think we should give Matt another chance. This time, Matt, look deep within. What are your earliest memories, as a child, of the Clinton Administration? Forget what all the "uber cool" people are saying and wearing and about who they're talking and what those people are wearing. I know this is important to you now. But it's all so much pap.
Don't worry about the hype, do your own research. And if you need to watch TV, YouTube has a bunch of FDT clips you can watch. |
|
|
So what exactly is wrong with old fashioned? Where along the way did we lose respect for morals, wisdom and life experience? What exactly has been right about "new" fashioned? |
|
The Thompsen hype is a complete result of the longing for Reagan conservatism that Bush has left us all in great desire of. The media starting putting it in our heads that there is no real conservative in the race and everybody bought into it, largely becuase Guliani and McCain really are not conservatives.
Fred's name became the right fit and everbody buys into it like its gold. Because he has not stepped in yet, there are been no realy scrutiny upon him. He continues to bask in this media created hype. I have not bought into it yet either. I am going to wait and see.
Old fashioned I don't know. All I know is that we need someone that is more than conservative for the next president, we need someone who is also competent. I don't see fred's experience in administration as even comparing to Romney's so I am in his boat currently. I think Romney has the "presidential" look and abiltiy to articulate that Fred has as well. I still keep thinking that the two of them combined on one ticket is the way to go.
|
|
is that "after a couple of years in the White House"...
So Matt Lewis is saying he's not in favor of RE-electing Thompson in 2012?
|
|
Old Fashioned? By what definition?
Intelligent; articulate; honest; straight talking.
Old Fashioned?
Just take a few moments and try to picture the various candidates in the office of the President. C'mon! You can do it. Picture each one in the oval office; addressing Congress; addressing the American public; simply doing executive things and running a well-oiled office; representing the US when meeting with foreigners: British, French, Russian, Arab; dealing with Terrorism, or whatever the Democrats are calling it today; appointing the judiciary; instilling trust and the work ethic among his/her employees; playing political games; cowtowing to special interests; the list goes on.
So who looks best? Who acts best? Who would you rather have in your home for dinner and conversation? Who would you trust as a babysitter? Who has the credentials, experience, and demeanor to best represent the United States? Who would be inviting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to the White House?
Old Fashioned?
Give me old fashioned any day if it gets the job done. I've reviewed Senator Thompson's record, and it fares well in my mind. Hillary is pathetic; Obama lacks experience even as a socialist; Giuliani has too much personal baggage; McCain is untrustworthy; Romney is ?; the others don't count.
Old Fashioned? Amen. |
|
You seem to ramble a lot Matt, but I fear that is just not doing quality research on Sen Thompson...when you say:
"And while that Gary Cooper demeanor may appeal to many conservatives, I think that after a few years in the White House, it would be a huge "turn off" to everyone else. "
Do you mean by everyone else, as the liberals?...I sure hope they turn off, as our Nation would be a lot better without them.. |
|
Americans want a candidate who will stand up for Americans, not pander to illegal aliens.
These next 2 years are vital to the future of this country. For 2007 we must make certain that McCain/Kennedy or whatever it's called this year does not pass the House. It will pass the Senate. The President will sign it, followed by the Totalization Treaty with Mexico, which qualifies former illegals with just 6 qtrs(18 mo) even if worked illegally, the benefits that we had to work 40 qtrs(10 yrs) to qualify for.
In 2008 we must make the candidates address border security and immigration enforcement.
20-30 million citizens of other countries are in our country illegally, 55% from Mexico, most of the rest from other Central and South American countries. Let's not ignore the leftward voting trends of these countries. It is notable that they picked May Day, an old communist day of celebration for their marches.
Most polls show at least half of the American citizens of Hispanic descent want the borders and laws enforced. Republicans will not win by alienating their current voters to get 40% of a new small block that will grow very large, very fast if amnesty is granted. That will grow the Democrats vote larger and faster as the influx increases exponentially as the result of another amnesty. It will spell the end of the Republican Party. The people who used to vote Republican will stop voting or form a new party. Conservatives will lose political influence and we will slide inexorably towards socialism (it has already started).
Most of what you hear about this issue is political propaganda that tries to convince you to give up your country without a fight, including on Fox News. The big money players are all on board the cheap labor express, they care not that American citizens do not want another amnesty. We know the last one resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens and a general disregard of our laws. The next one will be equally successful.
We need Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, not reform. We need to restore respect for the law and the faith of the American people that their government is not selling them out. Amnesty for the illegal aliens is also amnesty for the corrupt companies who have been employing them. Money trumps everything, including love of country. Multi-nationals have no loyalty to country by definition, they see us as a market, not a nation. They see people as workers, documented or undocumented, no difference. If they can't send the work to where the labor is cheaper, then they want to bring the cheap labor here. Citizenship is meaningless.
If we love our Constitution and our representative Republic and we intend to keep it we must not surrender our sovereignty or abandon the rule of law. Profits must not supercede security. We should not create a new path to citizenship. We have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other country, illegal aliens have ignored it and bad choices do have consequences.
|
|
I think you raise some good points but if Thompson is as tough as we think he is (that we see in the movies), I think that would be a good thing. All of the candidates now--except for Edwards-- are trying to create an image of toughness.
Giuliani-- tough on crime in New York City, will be tough on the terrorists.
John McCain-- tough during war, will be tough against growing threats like Iran.
Romney-- will be tough against terrorists
Hillary Clinton-- She is trying to create the biggest image of toughness. She will not back down from her vote on the war even though the left wants her to.
Barack Obama-- He wants to be tough also against growing threats. Though he wants to be "tough" in a more diplomatic sense.
I definately think an image of toughness is a good thing and it helped get Bush elected and re-elected.
With Rummy, I think the toughness became, to many, an inability to adapt to what was happening in Iraq, and that was the flaw. Rummy was tough but mistakes were made and he was not able to redefine those mistakes so his image suffered. (With him, I think it should be noted also that he was the second longest serving Secretary of Defense. With such tenure, I think that people are more apt to criticize you for your mistakes.)
|
|
Fred definitely appeals to a certain segment, as do most movie stars. They have a following. Not everyone thinks Arnold is all that cool or even a good actor. Fred does have the advantage of a lot of experience in front of a camera, that helps.
How do I know when he is the real Fred and when it is his Candidate Character? That goes to the heart of "do I trust him" and "why should I trust him".
Any politican can hire a spin machine. I want to know if Thompson can be swift boated? I want to know if he has the vulnerabilities that will sink him if he gets the nomination.
McCain has been vetted for 8 years, Romney has caught flack from just about every angle on every minor gaff, Guiliani is being looked at closely.
We have heard all of the hype. How damaging is the flip side?
|
|
|
I see your point, but I see it as a positive instead of a negative. Year after year Republicans long to see the coming of the next "Reagan", and Thompson shows us a glimmer of hope. Maybe it is the acting, or the feeling he is more cowboy than politician. The last time we had a cowboy in office he ended the cold war and made us all feel a lot safer. We are longing for that feeling again. Some years we need a diplomate and some years we need a President who will reassert the U.S. as a superpower. After we are out of the political mess we are in now, maybe he will out live his usefulness, but that is why we have elections every four years. |
|
Young man,
It will be 20 years before you are right on anything. When that day comes, I will be proud celebrate it with you.
Until then, I suggest you learn to appreciate the old fashioned. Your message today reveals that you have little to offer in the way of a perspective on the human condition. You seem to be incapable of expressing yourself with any depth. If it wasn't for Hollywood and TV sitcoms, you would be at a loss for words or even phrases. I doubt that you have even seen a Gary Cooper movie.
Twenty years from now, you will be writing of the power of Fred D. Thompson's communication style. His words and actions will send a clear signal to the world of America's moral convictions and resolve and THAT is a very important quality in the leader of the free world. |
|
Matt-I still like Rumsfeld. He did his job as a Commander of Warriors. We won. He wasn't hired to be the Mayor of Baghdad.
Thompson does have a maturity and sobriety that I think appeals to people of all Ages. I think he speaks in a way average people understand. No lawyerly gobbelygook(?). Plain-speaking. I think people appreciate that.
After all, the Constitution isn't that hard to understand. They wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote. For the Ages.
You may be over thinking this.
Good column, though.
|
|
|
|