Home > President Fred or bust! > Surging Ronnie?

Surging Ronnie?

January 3rd, 2008

“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.”–Ronald Reagan

More from Peter Robinson:

“Iowa Republicans, in other words, have wanted Thompson to do them the courtesy of actually campaigning—and now they’re beginning to realize that he has. First Thompson conducted a two-week bus tour of Iowa at which he campaigned in more than 50 towns and cities. Then he taped a 17-minute video in which he makes his case more calmly, deliberately, and and with incomparably greater respect for the issues than has any of his opponents. And? For a lot of Iowa Republicans, that’s all they needed.

The Thompson campaign may be shaping up as something like the precise reverse of the Clinton campaign. Presenting herself as the candidate of inevitability, Hillary dare not slip in the polls for fear of suffering a rapid and irretrievable collapse. Fred is by contrast the candidate who just can’t get elected—solid, likeable, and best on the issues—but, well, a man for whom it just isn’t going to happen. But as modest as it so far remains, his sudden rise in the polls—this “late-breaking surge,” to quote Zogby again—could persuade whole slews of Republicans that Fred could indeed win after all, leading to a definitive breakout.

From an unexpectedly strong third place in Iowa…to first place in South Carolina?”

Few things would tickle me more than if the voters chose to reward not the candidates who began salivating for the job three seconds after George Bush’s hand came off the Bible at the last inaugural, but the guy who, like Reagan, wants to “serve” as, not “be” president.

An tale of two e-mails:

“Mr. Robinson,

In your opinion, is Fred Thompson a Reagan conservative? I ask because you actually had a chance to work with the man and would know better than most. Rush said maybe only one candidate was a Reagan conservative, but he wouldn’t name him. My measly two cents says he was talking about Fred, but he didn’t want to endorse him. Thanks in advance.”

The second email, from my old boss in the Reagan White House—the man who hired me into the speechwriting shop—Ben Elliott. Ben himself worked closely with the Gipper, in particular drafting some of Reagan’s most memorable economic addresses. Ben writes:

“Only Thompson has a true conservative platform to defend life, liberty and American sovereignty. Only Thompson is advancing a compelling program for economic growth by controlling entitlement spending, unleashing innovation and making the American Dream real for every taxpayer. Only Thompson is committed to strengthening both our military and our intelligence and rallying the country for what must be a protracted struggle against jihadism.”

Is Thompson a Reagan conservative? He is indeed.

Fred is. The question becomes…are we?

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Martin
    January 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 | #1
    About 20 years ago in his book "Parliament of Whores", P.J. O'Rourke said that the very fact that a person is willing to do what is neccessary to get elected president should, by itself, disqualify that person from the job.

    Unfortunately, I just don't see the "reluctant candidate" thing working for Fred. Even Reagan enthusiastically sought the nomination in both 1976 and 1980.

    The problem really isn't the candidates, it's us. We throw our votes to whoever promises us the biggest bag of candy. Sadly, in a democratic republic like ours, the people get the government they deserve.

  2. January 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 | #2
    Whores 'R Us?

    True, I guess--but it's also true that Americans have a certain wisdom and integrity. I hope so-we've staked our system on it. As the article noted, Fred is doing the groundwork--and in fairness, everyone suffers in comparison to Reagan.

    Anyway, this is the beginning of the process, not the end. We get tired of the horse-race, but I wish the states hadn't jammed-up their primaries into Jan. & Feb. They did it to gain influence, but I think it cost them influence. Better to stretch it out--plus, it keeps us from making a hasty choice.

    This stuff is important. We shouldn't rush it just so the Drive-Bys can get to their next crime scene. I have this crazy notion that we should count the votes first.

  3. Vince
    January 3rd, 2008 at 17:06 | #3
    This may be good. Watching the bloggers and pollsters mirror each others mirrors until they actually believe that they have a handle of reality, when no one knows what the voters are going to do when they get in and vote. Fred Thompson can't get elected because he didn't campaign early enough, he is not serious enough, etc. Is any of this based on anything other that dust in the wind? I think not. We shall see. I, for one, am betting that when it finally gets down to it, there are going to be a lot of people eating their words in a few months.
  4. Martin
    January 3rd, 2008 at 17:36 | #4
    Vince: We can only hope. But the unfortunate thing is that getting elected is about more than just ideas and charisma, it's about getting the two things that politicians absolutely have to have in order to win: Attention and money. And the unfortunate part is that it's a vicious cycle: Those with the money get lots of attention. Which brings in more money. Which brings more attention. Which brings more money, etc.

    If all it took to get nominated was the enthusisasm of a few die-hard volunteers, then Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee and Dennis Kucinich the democrat. The only winners there would be the hardware stores who would make millions of $$ selling shovels as people desperately tried to dig their way to China in order to avoid the inetvitable doom that this country would then face.

Comments are closed.