Patterico's Pontifications

10/2/2007

J. Peter Mulhern on “President Thompson”

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 10:13 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

J. Peter Mulhern in the American Thinker writes that Fred Thompson is the only candidate that makes sense to be the Republican Party nominee for President.

Here is the introduction from Mulhern’s article:

“Conventional wisdom is hardening around the proposition that Fred Dalton Thompson is too lazy, ill-prepared, tired, old, lackluster, inexperienced, inconsistent and bald to make a successful run for President.

Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it’s only by accident. In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he’s a very impressive candidate. Second, there’s no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons.”

On John McCain:

“John McCain’s candidacy may not be dead, but then again, neither is Ariel Sharon. McCain has been at war with the Republican Party for a decade. The idea that he could win the GOP’s presidential nomination was never more than a fantasy. His presence in the race will soon become an embarrassment, if it isn’t one already.”

On Rudy Giuliani:

With Rudy on the ballot millions of “values voters” would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism’s promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.”

On Mitt Romney:

“Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy.”

In analyzing Romney, Mulhern manages a few jabs at former President Bill Clinton:

“Oddly, Mitt Romney gives me new insight into Bill Clinton’s career. I always used to wonder how much of Clinton’s appeal, such as it was, depended on his flaws rather than his strengths. Could Clinton have been so charming to so many without the selfishness, the total lack of self-discipline, the sexual incontinence, the dishonesty, the flabby physique and the swollen nose? Did he depend on his repulsive and dysfunctional traits to humanize him? Romney’s struggle to connect with voters suggests that he did.”

Mulhern argues that Thompson is the best Presidential candidate because he speaks with sensible maturity, not slick soundbytes, and because he is a communicator instead of a manager:

“We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States “running the country” that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it. We don’t want or need a president who is inclined to run things. We need a President who leads and inspires. Fred, with his non-managerial background, is the only candidate of either party who seems to get this.”

Thompson’s message, according to Mulhern, is simple:

“After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: “Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom.” Thompson replied “you just summed up my whole speech.”

I don’t share Mulhern’s optimism in a Republican win in 2008 but I think his points are interesting.

— DRJ

13 Responses to “J. Peter Mulhern on “President Thompson””

  1. That was a great read. Thank you.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. Not much of a prognosticator:

    In any case, having stepped over that cliff in the 70’s, the Democrats are very unlikely to win either house of Congress in 2006.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/are_the_democrats_whigging_out.html

    I’d go with the CW on Thompson…that dog won’t hunt.

    alphie (99bc18)

  3. Interesting read. My personal opinion is that Rudy is still in a stronger position to win the general election. The abbreviated primary schedule is to his advantage.
    Fred just doesn’t put any blue states into play and is likely to lose NM and Colorado. The Dems can throw all their money into NM, Colorado, Ohio, Iowa and Virginia.
    Rudy makes Hillary have to spend money in some blue states to defend them. If he can hone a message that assures the legal citizens of Hispanic background that measures to enforce the laws benefit them as well and stay away from the fearmongering that happened with the immigration bill he can possibly hold NM and Colorado.
    But the way that the GOP base is demanding a purebred conservative with no hint of moderation will probably be one of the factors that causes Hillary to be elected. People in the middle just aren’t “feeling the love”.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  4. I think Huckabee will win the GOP nomination. The CW on Thompson is correct. Voters are tired of choosing the best drinking buddy for President, even if he smells good. The idea he will win the general is even more comical.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  5. While I hope For Fred, I would settle for Hunter, even though so few know who he is…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  6. Andrew: oddly enough, given that i’m far to the left of most readers here, I could get behind a Huckabee nomination, especially if the alternative were Hillary.

    Gov. Huckabee has impressed me tremendously during the debates. He’s a thoughtful man who has come by his positions honestly; he’s capable of deep introspection and making changes as a result of what that introspection reveals; he’s got courage and commitment.

    I deeply disagree with much of what he believes. But he’s a reasonable man who considers the alternatives, and he will listen and *think about* more than one side of the issues.

    I’m somewhat shocked to find myself believing this, mind you, but despite the fact that we disagree on policy, he’s probably my favorite current candidate of either party.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  7. Thompson is the only candidate who represents the mainstream voter who has a chance of winning the nomination. If he pairs with Hunter rather than a RINO and offers a clear choice between the sociocrats and conservatives we will see a blowout. I haven’t seen so radical a dhimmie5rat party since the 1972 disaster. 2008 looks like a clear defeat for the trolls and Soro’s pals.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  8. VOR, that’s pretty comical. The base is unwilling to accept anyone with a “hint of moderation” because they won’t support a man who is on the opposite side from them in most of the major issues of today: illegal immigration, gun control, abortion, gay marriage, property rights, hetero marriage (he’s a serial adulterer). I can only think of two issues where Guilliani is with the base: crime and Iraq.

    What candidates have you voted for recently where the candidate was on the opposite side from you on 3/4 of the major issues? There is no way that Guilliani will be able to get enough of the Republican base to vote for him to win the general election.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)

  9. Doc,
    I’ll start with the easy one. Serial adulterer disqualifies Thompson right off the bat and qualifies Hillary and Obama (good spouse married only once).
    Rudy says he will appoint strict judges who don’t change social policy by fiat. In turn it lets more of the citizens have a say in issues regarding morals and ethics. I kind of like having that choice.
    But my comments on moderation stand. The “base won’t vote for” phrase is your choice but if the majority of card carrying republicans nominate Rudy in the primary you won’t vote in the general, yet you expect the moderates to support a more conservative nominee more in line with the base?
    Makes no sense.

    voiceofreason (9eb62d)

  10. vor – Thompson is a serial adulterer? Proof please. Don’t forget that he once played a racist on TV.

    JD (f718d0)

  11. Hey, Doc. Not only will Rudy be unable to get enough of the GOP base to vote for him to win a general election, he will not be able to survive the GOP primary.
    Go Fred!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  12. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/thompson_saddam_clearly_had_wmd_and_a_nuke_program.php

    I’d say lazy is about right. Lazy and not too bright.
    But reading these debates has been fun..I’m hoping its the adulterer thrice divorced catholic ex mayor of NYC who rooms with homosexual couples and hangs out with child molesters. Then we get the 3rd party run by the folks Karl rove calls’the crazies’.

    The well-earned self-destruction of the lunatic right.
    Good for the country all in all.
    .

    blah (7fdbf2)

  13. VOR, you seem to have missed my point. It’s not one issue, adultery, but the mass of issues. That’s why even if your charge about Thompson are true (and I think you are lying) that in itself is probably not enough to sink him (although it might, depending on the situation) and the fact that we don’t know about any personal issues of Hillary and Obama does not make them good on family values. They embrace and enable those with contempt for traditional morality. Besides, Hillary and Bill are two of the most corrupt major politicians in US history and Obama is an idiot.

    As to Rudi’s promises to elect judges that actually enforce the law instead of making rulings based on their own policy preferences: too little too late. No one believes that a New York liberal who has supported unfettered abortion and government-funded abortion for decades, who doubtless has dozens of judge friends that share his beliefs, is going to go looking for judges that disagree with him to appoint to federal benches.

    As to these “moderates” you talk about, you would have to explain why they couldn’t support Thompson before I could answer.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3863 secs.