Why Fred Wins

The American Thinker has an interesting piece by J. Peter Mulhern on why he believes Fred Thompson will not only win the Republican nomination, but also the Presidency, and his analysis mirrors mine to a large degree. He first relates the usual MSM dribble about Thompson - lazy, no fire, tired, no executive experience, inconsistent, etc.

"Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it's only by accident. In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he's a very impressive candidate. Second, there's no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons."

Mulhern then goes on to relate the various shortcomings of the other candidates in detail.

McCain? While he's long been a media darling, he's effectively been ostracized by his own party's base due to the twin issues of campaign finance reform and illegal immigration. While I am a big fan of McCain's unswerving devotion to the troops and their misison, and deeply appreciate his sacrifices during his time in uniform, John never had any realistic chance of winning the nomination.

Romney? The only places he is polling ahead of the front runners are places the front runners haven't really spent any time or money on, which will change dramatically over the next couple of months. Romney's hope has been that the early states give him enough momentum to gain ground nationally. However, his penchant for MBA style lectures gives him a communication gap to the average voter and his flexible, inconsistent positions on the issues lead voters to distrust his motives.

The Mayor? Conventional wisdom (again) believes the Republicans can win only by swallowing hard and reaching out to moderates, which is pretty much hogwash, as Mulhern puts it:

"This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can't win by appealing to people who won't vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales."

Mulhern points out a significant distinction between Republican and Democratic parties is that R's fight back when traditional social institutions are threatened by vandalizing extremists, while Dems hand over spray paint to the vandals. He goes on to relate that Rudy had his chance to reach out to the base at the very beginning of the campaign, and he blew it. He would have had to admit the Roe v. Wade was a badly decided case, but he didn't. As a result, millions of values voters will likely stay home if Rudy is the nominee.

But wouldn't Rudy be a strong leader on the war on terror? Mulhern doesn't think so, and I tend to agree. He has mouthed some platitudes, but doesn't seem to understand the strategic situation and connected the dots leading back to Tehran.

"When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them. Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn't make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay."

Mulhern then goes on to list the things that make Fred a different candidate. He doesn't pander to special interests, as his response to some local questions in Florida illustrate. Fred simply said that he preferred local repsonses to local issues in reponse to the Shiavo case, and believed that the nation couldn't afford to restrict itself from domestic energy supplies in response to a question about drilling for oil in the Everglades. Political consultant Dick Morris (who's never met an interst group he didn't try to curry) was aghast, but it sounds to me like a man with some strong principles.

The response to the charge Fred hasn't run anything is that the President isn't supposed to run the nation, just one branch of the government, and his strong commitment to Federalism shows that he is outside the mainstream politicians that believe the solution to every problem runs right through DC and the Federal money trough.

Another strong point for Thompson is that he understands the strategic situation far more thoroughly than any of the other candidates. Iran has pretty much been at war with the US since the hostages were taken almost forty years ago. Fred would not have let the Iranian president into the country to speak at Columbia University. He also noted that General Petraeus testimony pretty clearly linked Iran to those groups killing American troops in Iraq and that this should clearly have far more serious consequences to the Iranians than has been the case to this point in time.

Another point in Thompson's favor is his communication skills. He speaks calmly and sensibly about large important issues, such as reforming the tax code and overhauling social security, but doesn't come across as some crazed radical. This is worth its weight in gold to the commonplace voter seeking a candidate they can trust with their security and our collective future.

"Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.

After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech." No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes."

Exactly.