The Next Reagan ( food for thought)
By Bruce Walker
Two months ago, I wrote an article, "The Next Reagan," in which I outlined
many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan. Events
since then have confirmed my arguments. I predict that Fred Thompson will
enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly easily, and that
he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the presidential election. Why?
First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine
enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate. Both of
the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though respect for our
current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply not an
effective communicator or articulator of conservative principles. President
Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the 1996 nominee, and
also better as a communicator and campaigner than his father. That is how
bad things have been for conservatives since the Gipper left the White
House.
Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal communicator. His
background as a film and television star combines perfectly with his
background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that he is not only
comfortable in front of the camera or at the microphone, but his skills in
rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure since Senator Robert
Taft over fifty years ago.
Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he was
Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in which
Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson did not
tolerate the corruption of the Nixon Administration. He can effectively
point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in opposing
corruption when it was his political party that had problems. Thompson also,
though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption of the Clinton
Administration and stood out as the lone Republican senator with real guts
during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The combination of these two
principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly condemn Hillary as an
accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt eight years in office, to ask
her point-blank about how she became the best investor in America (with no
experience), and otherwise to do more than simply suggest that Hillary is a
liar, a hypocrite and a bully.
Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican Party. No
one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some conservatives
may worry about his friendship and past support for John McCain, the
critical fact is that friendship is
reciprocated: McCain would be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred
Thompson in the presidential election.
Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy" when he was in the Senate.
This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald
Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because Thompson acts from principle,
he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for
"work" in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson,
who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician
in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as
being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in
conservative periodicals as "lazy" at all. Like Reagan, he probably works
harder than anyone in Washington.
Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson would
completely sweep the South, including problematic states like Arkansas,
Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few modern
candidates who has true regional drawing power.
Thompson, though, would run very strongly in swing states outside the South
like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly
independent and undecided voters is real.
Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in how
the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy of moral
purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his palpable
decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him look awful
and any attempt will backfire in sympathetic support for him.
Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that Leftists
hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on the
issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because, like all
Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants power.
Thompson just wants what is best for America. We have our Reagan.
For reference: Google Fred Thomson or click on:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson>http://en.wikipedia.org/w
iki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
By Bruce Walker
Two months ago, I wrote an article, "The Next Reagan," in which I outlined
many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan. Events
since then have confirmed my arguments. I predict that Fred Thompson will
enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly easily, and that
he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the presidential election. Why?
First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine
enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate. Both of
the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though respect for our
current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply not an
effective communicator or articulator of conservative principles. President
Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the 1996 nominee, and
also better as a communicator and campaigner than his father. That is how
bad things have been for conservatives since the Gipper left the White
House.
Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal communicator. His
background as a film and television star combines perfectly with his
background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that he is not only
comfortable in front of the camera or at the microphone, but his skills in
rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure since Senator Robert
Taft over fifty years ago.
Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he was
Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in which
Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson did not
tolerate the corruption of the Nixon Administration. He can effectively
point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in opposing
corruption when it was his political party that had problems. Thompson also,
though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption of the Clinton
Administration and stood out as the lone Republican senator with real guts
during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The combination of these two
principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly condemn Hillary as an
accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt eight years in office, to ask
her point-blank about how she became the best investor in America (with no
experience), and otherwise to do more than simply suggest that Hillary is a
liar, a hypocrite and a bully.
Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican Party. No
one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some conservatives
may worry about his friendship and past support for John McCain, the
critical fact is that friendship is
reciprocated: McCain would be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred
Thompson in the presidential election.
Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy" when he was in the Senate.
This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald
Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because Thompson acts from principle,
he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for
"work" in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson,
who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician
in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as
being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in
conservative periodicals as "lazy" at all. Like Reagan, he probably works
harder than anyone in Washington.
Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson would
completely sweep the South, including problematic states like Arkansas,
Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few modern
candidates who has true regional drawing power.
Thompson, though, would run very strongly in swing states outside the South
like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly
independent and undecided voters is real.
Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in how
the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy of moral
purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his palpable
decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him look awful
and any attempt will backfire in sympathetic support for him.
Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that Leftists
hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on the
issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because, like all
Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants power.
Thompson just wants what is best for America. We have our Reagan.
For reference: Google Fred Thomson or click on:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson>http://en.wikipedia.org/w
iki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
