Fred Thompson Makes Major Reaganesque Speech For Iowans : Too Late?
With polls in Iowa see-sawing faster than a see-saw in a playground used by hyperactive five-year-olds, a Republican candidate who has seemingly fallen off the media radar is getting some notice and even again being called Reaganesque: actor Fred Thompson.
Yes, THE Fred Thompson who seemingly had an incredible moment in political history when GOPers were waiting for him to enter the fray as a kind of new Ronald Reagan who could offer them an appealing choice from a political buffet table that many found unappealing, warmed over, filled with leftovers and offering what seemed to them to be left wings..
Thompson told reporters yesterday that he feels he has to finish at least second in Iowa — and he delivered a speech that went up on the Internet that was the kind of speech many in the GOP had hoped to hear. One that reminded them of Reagan, in Thompson’s attempt to reach out to dissatisfied Democrats — and one that also talked about national security concerns, saying the terrorists won’t be happy until there’s a mushroom cloud over an American city:
[Thompson] went on the offensive Sunday, accusing Democratic leaders of abandoning their principles and allowing their party to be taken over by liberal interest groups, including the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a 15-minute Web video released Sunday, the former Tennessee senator said voters ought to choose a GOP nominee who will tell Democrats where their party stands.
“They’re all NEA, MoveOn.org, ACLU, Michael Moore Democrats,” Thompson said in the video posted on his campaign Web site. “They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of the party and dictate their course.”
He added, “I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.”
It is a great Republican speech. And It pushed the kinds of buttons many GOPers wanted to hear months ago. Peter Robinson, of National Review’s The Corner:
Whereas Romney is saturating the airwaves with attack ads, Thompson pays the voters the courtesy of speaking calmly, and in detail—the video runs to just over 15 minutes. Why should the good Republicans of Iowa support Thompson? Because, the candidate argues, he can win.
Robinson offers a quote and then adds this:
In the passage I found the most striking, Thompson does something no other Republican contender has attempted: appeal to Democrats.
.
He offers some Thompson quotes, including this one:
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them
.
He sees this speech as reminiscent of Reagan’s in North Carolina in 1976:
Simple, straightforward, modest production values—just the candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag—but (to use the word again) compelling. Reagan’s 1976 talk enabled him to recover after a string of primary defeats, winning in North Carolina, then going on to come within a handful of delegates of wresting the nomination from Ford. Will Thompson’s talk move voters in Iowa? Does his campaign have the money to get it on the air? Throughout the state? Or even in a few of the most important markets? Beats me. But we have here a serious man, making a serious case—and doing so in the context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere caterwauling.
Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out.
Still, it’s easier to count Thompson out than to count him in, given his late entry into the campaign, early campaign stumbles and poor media coverage at a time when people were getting a first impression of him. His victory or even strong place showing in Iowa would be eyebrow-raising, underscoring how more than ever the Republicans are not satisfied with the front runners.
The polls vary by the day because the race has essentially become a toss up. But the latest one shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pulling ahead of Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee (a candidate who reportedly upsets the Republican establishment):
In a new MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is drawing 27% of likely caucus-goers, compared to 23% for former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee. Romney’s strong showing is a blow to Huckabee, who had been enjoying a surge in the polls in Iowa.
On the Democratic side, John Edwards is pulling in 24% of likely caucus goers in the poll, just one percentage point ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Barack Obama, meanwhile, gets 22% of votes in the new poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.
So can Thompson do it?
Just an Internet video won’t do. He needs money to get his message across. He could make a stronger showing than expected but in the end it’s more likely that when the nominee is named Thompson will be perceived by many Republicans as the candidate who could have been.
TWO BLOG REACTIONS:
From Democratic The Democratic Daily, which has an EXCELLENT poll wrap up:
The sleeper of the Republican race, Fred Thompson apparently couldn’t get off his duff any further than to issue an Internet video as his closing arguments to the people of Iowa. Still, Peter Robinson of The Corner says, “I wouldn’t count Fred out.” Hmmm.
From the lively Republican blog Wizbang:
Fred has a 17 minute YouTube video in which he speaks directly to Iowa voters. He outlines who he is, what he believes, and what he wants to do as president and does an effective job making his case why he should be the Republican nominee for president. If you live in Iowa and are still trying to figure out who to caucus for, take out some time and watch it. I think you’ll like it.
….By the way, Peter wrote Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech, so if anyone knows if someone is being Reaganesque, it’s him.
And here’s the speech:
Share This
Related Posts
-
Candid Obama Says ‘Hand Wringing’ After Debate Will Ebb
Posted on Oct 10, 2012
-
Mitt Romney Tells Voters: If I’m elected, Don’t Expect Huge Tax Cuts
Posted on Sep 26, 2012
-
NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist Polls: Obama Hits 50% in Swing States Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin
Posted on Sep 20, 2012
-
Obama: No Retreat, No Surrender
Posted on Jan 25, 2012
That’s a great speech? It sounds like random bits of NRO strung together. Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Note I said a great REPUBLICAN speech. It’s the kind of speech that will appeal to Republican voters. His speech was not aimed at winning over voters voting in the Democratic primary. If it sounds like NRO to you, then it’s probably a home run with many Republican voters who like NRO.
Pretty boilerplate to me. The Democrat [sic] Party has been taken over by…liberals! What Republican hasn’t said that in the last 30 years?
I think this video is part of a concerted effort by the Thompson camp to get people to take his candidacy seriously again. For that, I don’t begrudge them.
As a Democrat, I hope Thompson manages to finish third in Iowa, above McCain. Then Thompson won’t bow out just yet (endorse McCain) and Romney could still win New Hampshire – assuming he ends up beating Huckabee in Iowa. If Romney wins New Hampshire, McCain is done and the Democrats will destroy whoever ends up the GOP nominee.
NOTHING he offered in the video he hasn’t said before on numerous occasions.
Therefore, your laughable advice is almost as ignorant as your conclusions.
Grow up and get a clue.
Thompson: Too little as well as too late!
He’s saying it’s run by radicals (who repel Americans), which isn’t the same thing. Even those who have been radical before (Hillary Clinton) have currently chosen “safe” “centrist” or “moderate” postures, so they don’t lose 2-3+ voters for every voter they would gain by going to the far left.
He’s a middling actor in “Law and Order” and a middling candidate. Let’s move along.
The boat of dissatisfied Democrats sailed long ago. Then many of the passengers discovered that the Republicans had drifted further to the right than the Democrats had to the left and changed course. It’s part of why the 2006 elections went the way they did. If the Republicans listening to this speech think that it actually will mean anything to moderate Democrats when the general election rolls around they’re fooling themselves.
The 2006 elections were about: a) dissatisfaction with Bush and the Iraq situation; b) dissatisfactoin with a Congressional GOP behaving like the Democratic GOP (complete with corruption and other misconduct).
Nobody with a normal and higher IQ believes the fear-mongering about the Religious Right or about the (contemporary definition of the term, ) “neo-conservatives.” (There is no theocratic movement in the federal government, and the neo-cons have been quietly skulking out of office.)
As for the Democratic voters, something real for which they would never vote for Thompson is: Thompson threatens to pour cold water on the on-going delusion of middle-class entitlements forever, by considering reforms to Social Security and Medicare that can include means testing. I don’t see Dem voters being attracted to such proposals.
Most notably was the unabashed appeal to the Reagan Democrats. The question is are there any left (or still alive)?
Otherwise, he went a little too long with it and it had some flat spots. Reagan always had an applause line every third sentence.
Its pretty sad that none of the candidates can win by being themselves; they have to appeal to GOP voters by being a cheap imitation of Ronald Reagan.
Which is of course why every Republican panders to the Religious Right and promises them the sun, moon and stars. And why Bush delivered to them with his Supreme Court nominees as best as he could. What is really not believed by those with a norma or higher IQ is the constant attempt by those from that side of the political spectrum to claim centrism, normalcy and no influence by James Dobson and his fellows on the Republican party.
“the Democrats will destroy whoever ends up the GOP nominee.”
Common sense would certainly point in that direction, and the bumbling and fragmenting of the R’s only make it moreso, and yet. . . we have a long way to go before November. I think everyone knows how serious this election is, I just hope it’s entertaining as well, not in a Rovian way, but in a Keystone Cops way.
Oh, and Thomson?
“Thompson: Too little as well as too late!”
It would have been too little even if he had been early.
“Let’s move along.” Yup.
Thompson to Dobson: “I am not going to dance to anybody’s tune. Somebody makes a charge like that against me doesn’t know me who is supposed to be speaking for all people of faith or something like that. I am not going to run around and try to prove to people that he is wrong about me.”
Lets move along to something else you clowns have also no idea what you’re talking about.
Thompson doesn’t come across as energetic enough to fill the demanding role of President. If anyone wonders about that, just look at Bush 43 and how he has aged since 2000. Put that kind of daily responsibility on Fred, and he’ll look like a great grandpa. OK, so he gets a few points for having fathered two young children with a new wife. And BTW, if Dobson endorses Huckabee, then Thompson will look better to me. I couldn’t be on the same team as the man from Colorado Springs.
As a resident of Iowa, I can tell you the local press assessment of Thompson has been pretty brutal, they have certainly picked up the narrative that he is lazy, uninspiring and appears to be sleep walking through his appearances.
Hi TV commercials have had some good “reviews”, it is his live appearances that have been getting slammed – by both press and possible supporters. Internet videos will not have much impact in Iowa, this is the home of retail politics, literally bumping into candidates!
They’ll never learn if they’re unable or unwilling.