The Dream Shall Never Die
David Weigel | January 28, 2008, 10:51am
Like Tinkerbell, like Lazarus, like E.T., the Fred Thompson campaign is being wrenched back from the darkness by the prayers and applause of the devout. David Jeffers, author of
Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland,
thinks Fred can win a brokered convention if we just... believe.
"Many evangelicals have contacted me and have either or are planning to vote for Fred Thompson. I have cast my ballot for Fred Thompson... I've been told by many that I'm dreaming if I believe the GOP convention will be brokered, but do they know that for sure? Can we evangelicals say that God cannot work in that way? Please understand that I am not speculating nor predicting; I would not presume to speak for God. I'm merely reminding the flock that we still serve a mighty God…So I'm going to walk in the light I have now and know that God will provide more light later. That light is showing me to go with what I had planned all along."
Bill Quick, who took me to the woodshed for doubting the Big Voice, is leaving the responsibility with us mortals: we must stage a write-in campaign.
I’m pretty sure that if this notion starts to get traction, Fred Thompson will publicly oppose it. Don’t worry, and don’t listen to him.
(Didn't Republicans already agree to do that?)
This isn’t really about Fred Thompson. It’s about the future of the Republican party. Fred ran because he hoped to influence that, but he failed. Now it’s time for the rest of us to take a crack at it. So remember: Just write in Fred Thompson’s name when it comes time to cast your vote. (There’s nothing stopping you from writing it in for other offices, either).
The sad fact of the Fred campaign is that he influenced the rest of the field... not at all. He hardly creased a corner of the GOP platform. Perpetual third man John Edwards, via his early health care plan and his bullying the rest of the field to boycott Fox News and support the FISA filibuster, has had infinitely more impact on the presidential race.
The best argument I've read for Fred came, too late, in Andrew Ferguson's brilliant wrap-up of the campaign. Ferguson argues, correctly, that people didn't use to demand their presidential candidates jump through flaming hoops and give pony rides to Iowans to demonstrate their bona fides. Two centuries ago candidates were seen as craven and unseemly if they campaigned at all. It's a good case, but Thompson and his allies (like Zach Wamp) didn't make it. They argued that he was tall and had a deep voice and reminded everybody of Reagan, and they died on that hill.
compugor | January 28, 2008, 1:37pm | #
Every major position Thompson adopted had arisen from basic, overarching, consistent principles: Small government. Federalism. State rights. Individual rights derived from God, and not from government. The idea is, if you independently attempted to reach a position on any major issue based on these principles, you would likely end up where Fred Thompson was.
And that’s what Thompson’s appeal was all about. His positions did not depend on the time of the year or on the state he was in. It was never about putting Fred Thompson, the former Senator, the actor, the lawyer, the man, in the Oval Office. It was about putting basic conservative principles in the Oval Office, with Thompson as a mere agent. And the best part is that he wholeheartedly accepted that objective.
That is why he didn’t decide to run until he saw the gaping hole in the field that needed to be filled. That is why he wasn’t willing to pander in order to score votes. That is why, instead of relying on sound bites and jokes to win the nomination, he settled instead for unentertaining, serious responses to what were supposed to be serious questions. That is why he put out detailed policy proposals when the others were speaking in tired general terms. And that is why he announced his candidacy in a 14-minute video, and made a plea to Iowa voters in a 17-minute video, both of which outlined highly intellectual rationales for his consistency and his positions.
Thompson was either going to get elected with his conservative principles intact, or he wasn’t going to get elected at all.
Now we are back to square one. Populism, artificiality, money, one-liners and common-denominator intellectualism have won the day. So have early state voters who believe that no person can make a good president unless he acknowledges their inalienable right to be exhaustively campaigned at for months and years.
But conservatism lost along with Fred Thompson, and America along with conservatism. Of course, Republicans had the right to choose whomever they wanted. But one thing they can no longer do is ask for a president who will be reliably conservative, and who will be so not because he promised it, but because he is genuinely guided by his principles. They had their chance, and they squandered it.
From the Keystrokes of John Q. Public.. | January 28, 2008, 3:30pm | #
Dear PTS,
Well I have reviewed the bullet points of his ideas for the government. I'm writing not to change your mind but to let you know that your appeals to me were not in vain:
The use of a word like federalism is a very liberal application in this instance:
-Instead of giving people a chance to opt out Social Security he wants to create an Additional Suppliment which will cost the Individual and Companies more.
-Instead of giving individuals the chance to opt out of medicare and medicaid he wants to make them more 'modern' by focusing on preventative care and more "competitive".
- He supports the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.
-Oddly the site mentions creating tax credits to be a major cost reducing aspect of medicaid(apparently the thompson camp is unaware that of 300 billion +7 annual growth, a majority of it is acute longterm care for seniors).
- Wants to keep the tax cuts, get rid of a few taxes, drop corp. tax down to 27%. Wants to give us an option between the "complicated" or flat tax. hmmm how about none of thee above.
- Massive increases in defense spending... apparently 1 trillion hasn't been enough.
- Education is based on parent's choice(good so far) but with vouchers and tax cuts(assuming this federal spending?).
- He supports a constitutional amendment for marriage(there goes state's right).
- Wants to bring about regime change in Iran.
You know after reading this, It's more like a Contract w/ America 2.0. Anyways, it's not much on federalism, state's rights or Constitutional governing. Sounds like a lot like a very Hamiltonian view of where our rights come from. Including the right to be left alone.
