A small hijack. Where did this persistant belief that Reagan was a great communicator come from? A lie repeated often enough becomes true, but who started this one? Reagan was a great communicator the same way Charlie McCarthy was.
I’m not really sure how to respond to this, since I’ve never known anyone, right or left, who didn’t at least begrudgingly admit that Reagan was a powerful speaker. Have you listened to any of his speeches? Were you of age when Reagan was in office?
Reagan first rose to prominence in 1964, when he gave an electrictrifying speech for Barry Goldwater (which he also wrote). Although Goldwater lost, Reagan emerged as a voice for Republicans based on that speech. You can hear it here.
Reagan had the ability to disarm opponents with a quick one-liner (“There you go again”, “I"m paying for this microphone!”, 'Mr. Gorbachev - Tear down this wall!") and to charm the public with same. Some of his speeches are considered to be among the greatest ever given by a president. For a non-political example, watch the speech he gave in response to the Challenger Disaster, or the speech he gave on the anniversary of D-Day (“These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc”).
Oh, well, no way a major political party will nominate him, then.
Bill Door: I’m no Republican but Reagan was a hell of a speechmaker, possibly the best of any President since FDR.
Hey, he could run as Chris Walken’s VP!
:d&r:
But if you listened to his speeches they were all pretty much content free appeals to emotion. Sam Stone up there talked about two of his best, one on the Challenger disaster and one on the anniversary of D Day. Did he say anything in them that everyone listening didn’t agree with? He wrapped himself in the heroism of people far better than he, and some of it stuck.
It was all just political glurge.
And Sam Stone, was I of age when Reagan was in office? You can take my reference to Charlie McCarthy as a clue. I was not impressed by him in either his first or second term as governor of California, but he did some great work selling Borax, that’s for sure.
It’s not a surprise that Thompson is looking good to Republicans, given the best of the best that they’ve been able to scrape up so far.
What’s funny to me is that when they need to get their shit together, they think of turning to an actor. Sure, Thompson can say things with gravitas like “This business will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” But is he really a political leader who can get America out of the mess the Republicans have led us into? Not in my book.
It’s time for the Republicans to start thinking about what America needs from its president and from its government. Until they can do so in a remotely serious way, they should be shunted aside. We can’t afford any more nonsense.
That works, though. Presidents don’t usually deal in educating the public; they deal in convincing, or manipulating, the public, at least when speaking. And Reagan was great at it. That aspect of the job is all about presenting the public face and attitude of the nation.
I was going to compare Reagan to Bush 2.0, but that’s damning with faint praise; Bush 2.0 is probably the worst public speaker in the history of the office. But Reagan was better than Carter, better than Bush 1.0 and, in my opinion, even better than Clinton, and Clinton was REALLY good. He was better than Ford, though again that’s not precisely fair, definitely better than Nixon, better than Johnson, and (while some will disagree) better than JFK, IMHO.
Getting back on track, no, Thompson will not be nominated. The Republican track record is that they pick a frontrunner and stick with them throughout the process. The current crop all have issues, but all the previous nominees had issues too. Bush 1.0 was allegedly a wimp, Dole was a hundred and eighty-six years old, and Bush 2.0 was a dimwit and a draft dodger. The GOP chose to stay on the same horse, and it usually worked, so why would they change their minds now?
Whomever appears to be “winning” in September 2007 will be the nominee, and it will unquestionably be either Giuliani or Romney.
Romney has no shot. I don’t know how they’d sell him. I’d go for Thompson over Giuliani, they are both charismatic but Giuliani seems too socially lefty.
Thompson’s no W, though, from what I’ve heard. He would not do things that I agree with, most likely, but I get the feeling he would be running his own adminstration- which may make him less attractive as a figurehead.
I am interested to see who, if anyone, Rove signs on for. Is his track record starting to wear on him? Is he still the consolidator of Republican clout?
Rove/Thompson sounds impossible, as ideologically aligned as they may be.
That’s 20-mule-team Borax to you, buckaroo! 
Going from a Bush reign to a Thompson reign would be shocking in my opinion. Though I believe Thompson is a powerful orator and an intelligent politician, I have a tough time seeing him as the POTUS. Don’t get me wrong, I think he may make a wonderful prez he’s well liked, he’s a Hollywood face, and he seems sincere. Who on earth would he pick for VP, and who on the hill is going to give him the republican nom nod?
My guess is that the Hannity, etc. push for Thompson is to try to keep the steering wheel yanked to the right- to remind the pubs that even in the hostile environment generated by this admin, there is a strong voting block still interested in traditional “conservative values”.
He also has a bit of what worked for Bush last time, he is likeable and warm, however he strikes me as having much more gravitas then bush had at his best.
Republicans might not be the only ones who like Dalton. The Democrats have Hillary (non-starter less because she’s a woman, although I don’t think the Great American Public is grown up enough to elect a female president yet, than because she’s strident and humorless; Barak Obama because … well, his name is Barak Obama, for chrissake; and John Edwards, another corn pone rich lawyer from Nawth Cahlahna, who isn’t going to be able to focus on his campaign regardless of protestations otherwise because his wife is deathly ill. On the GOP side we have John McCain, who allowed himself to be castrated in the N.C. primaries in 2000 and hasn’t grown a new set since then; Rudy Giuliani, who’s Italian ancestry will confine him to regional politics (we like our presidents to have names from the U.K. – ok, Roosevelt was an exception, but jool-ee-ahn-ee?); and Mit Romney, who’d probably be a damn fine president but, hell, if we’re not gonna’ elect an Italian, why the hell would we even consider a Mormon?
I’m not saying any of this is right or even reasonable, but I’ve watched presidential elections all my life. Americans are in a John Wayne mode right now, and we may not be able to think our way out of it. So yeah, Fred Dalton looks pretty good right now.
Surprising as this may seem, I think Sunrazor’s post comes close to the truth of the Republicans chances. It isn’t so much what Thompson’s qualities are, but how much the Republicans will be able to smear the Democratic candidate and engage in dirty shit. They proved that they can get a ham sandwich like Bush elected once.
So if Rove or a Rovian padawan is involved, they may have a shot, even with someone like Thompson.
We should also consider the possibility that Thompson is positioning himself well as a VP candidate. McCain/Thompson would be a very interesting ticket. Or Guliani/Thompson. Guliani especially needs someone with some foreign policy experience and someone who can help deliver the south.
Thompson would also make a good candidate for Attorney General - in fact, I seem to recall his name being bandied about back before Gonzalez was chosen.
He’s being very smart right now - dropping enough hints about possibly running to keep his name in the spotlight, while not committing himself to anything. Those of you who don’t follow Republican politics might be startled to find out just how strong the grassroots Thompson movement is. We’re talking thousands of volunteers for the draft committee, polls that show him closing on the leaders as the choice of the party, editorials and articles in every conservative periodical… This reminds me of the Howard Dean campaign before he yeaaarged himself out of contention.
James Dobson chimes in on Thompson:
Of course, in the same article he praises adulterer Newt because Gingrich may not walk the walk, but he does talk the talk, and THAT’s what really counts, eh? :rolleyes:
Dobson doesn’t care for him?
I like him better already.
Thompson was subbing for Paul Harvey yesterday. He has two inflections - monotone, and slightly louder monotone.
I don’t think I can stand four or eight more years of a President who is a rotten public speaker.
He’s also a crappy actor, even compared to Ronald Reagan.
I was genuinely surprised to read this. I have no respect for James Dobson, but I didn’t think he was a fool. And he’s behaving like a fool.
Translation: Gingrich kissed Dobson’s ass (because he needs all the help he can get to obscure his lousy record on personal morality); Thompson didn’t (because he doesn’t).