I understand that strangeness; it is both accurate and confusing; it is caused by the circumstances. I am a Tancredo guy writing about the Fred Thompson phenomenon.
I’ve tried to keep my head down, writing about the candidates and not writing about who I’m “rooting for” but, obviously, the one implies the other.
Let me try to sort this out.
As Michelle has said, I came out publicly supporting the candidacy of Tom Tancredo in 2006. I kind of gave a synopsis of that HERE (Part I).
When Fred Thompson emerged, just this spring, as a candidate, I was intensely interested, of course, just as I am in anyone who seems like they can impact the Presidential nomination on the Republican side. This is the living history of whether or not we survive as a nation.
Now, as I explain in the above linked article, I judge a candidate on two general criteria: 1, my estimation of what things he would do if elected and, 2, his ability to get himself elected.
The first criterion is not just a priority, but a contingency. It does not matter how attractive a candidate appears if it is a false façade; if, once he is in office, the “pretty face” does the opposite of what we elected him for. The damage such a “win” causes is ongoing. It does not matter how we might dress him up. By proving our Party unreliable, such an “electable” manakin makes the next Republican less electable. When we scam the electorate, our own natural allies quit trusting us. That’s what we’ve been doing in Washington State for decades and it has virtually ruined us as a Party.
Through my observation of Fred Thompson’s commentary, both written and video, it seemed to me that on my first criterion he was a true conservative in his philosophy and Constitutional outlook, but… hold on, while evaluating that, I realized that on the second criterion I was watching one of the best candidates I’ve ever seen.
Electable? This is a guy that would win by landslides.
It was because of his ability to handle controversial issues for the general public. That is the most significant factor affecting electability (and, perhaps, winning in Iraq). Fred can, simultaneously, deflect an accusatory attack on himself, explain in morally compelling terms the heart of the issue, convince you that his position is the right one and turn the attack back on the accuser, all without seeming mean or even strident, with an economy of language that is breathtaking. Ronald Reagan did that. He is, at once, clever, engaging, and persuasive. He is a man whose answers seem to just naturally emerge from who he is. It reminds me very much of WashingtonState’s own Susan Hutchison. Such a candidate carries a credibility that political consultants waste millions instructing lesser candidates how to fake.
I have unequivocally predicted Fred will, both, be the Republican nominee and win the Presidency in November of next year.
But, wait. Have I allowed his “electability” to become more important than my principles? In my excitement have I jumped the gun? Could he be as good in office as Tancredo or Hunter?
Isn’t the primary process supposed to answer the FIRST question: who would be the best in office?
By the time the next President takes office America will not have had a real conservative in the White House for 20 years. Isn’t the prospect of a new “great communicator” (that can once again lead us to landslides) clouding my judgement? In short, does this candidate not have serious weaknesses? Perhaps.
We need to consider three things (if you feel there are more, please email me at Doug@TheReaganWing.com, putting “Fred Thompson” in the Subject line):
1. Is Thompson’s position on protecting human life good? acceptable?
2. Is Thompson a philosophical Globalist (who, over time, will defer to the State Department squishes, act on multiculturalist precepts, abandoning foreign policy “linkage” and making multi-lateral agreements that continue to erode U.S. sovereignty under the guise of “free trade”)?
3. Is he as weak on Illegal Immigration as he has, at times, appeared?
[In part three I’ll dig into these subjects. There will also be funny pictures, games and jokes for the kids. Admission is free.]
This consideration also could well impact my prediction of a Thompson Presidential win in 2008. Why?
Because that prediction is rather like the guy who saw Pharoah’s army about to pin down Moses and the Israelites with their backs to the Red Sea and virtually no armaments. He predicted a clear Egyptian victory, not taking into account the absurd possibility that the Red Sea might part for the Israelites but immediately close down, again, on top of the Egyptians.
Miracles screw up natural calculation and America is overdue for a few miracles. The blood of 48 million innocent people forcibly put to death by our legal status quo cries out for a miracle. The hearts of our holiest pray for it.
Is Fred Thompson’s “magic” part of the miracle… or will the thwarting of that magic be miraculous?
Or will the Mainstream/RNC dinosaurs prevail, nominate a RINO and throw the election to Hillary as they threw the Washington Senate seats to Murray and Cantwell?
Stay tuned for Part Three.
Well, kids, it’s now November, 2013 and I am finally linking this article to the “Part III” that continued the narrative for all the political junkies, like you, who have the intensity to actually go back and read this in what was, at the time of the publication of II and III, the future, but, as you know, is now the present:
Part “Three”: http://wp.me/p3Rqg-fW
But I also must confess that I’m linking to what became a five-part series and the endorsement of a candidate not even mentioned in the articles you’ve just finished, a man of whom I was, at the time, ignorant.