Saturday, June 02, 2007

Fred Thompson - savior or Satan?

By Libby

So far Freddy boy has been riding a wave of popularity based solely on his acting credits and charisma, but as the man starts to outline his positions, it becomes more and more apparent that the new idol of the GOP's red meat Republicans has feet of clay. His latest column at the neo-con's home base at makes clear that he intends to sell himself as the soul of Reagan, embodied in Bush's swaggering macho persona, only with much bigger balls.

I'll give the guy credit for understanding and knowing how to use the new media to his advantage. I think he has a damn good chance of walking away with a GOP nomination that depends on winning the rabid right fringe vote but the idea I've seen promulgated that he is going to appeal to centrists is laughable. If I didn't know the author, I would have supposed the column was written by Cheney. He disdains diplomacy, celebrates forceful interventions and proposes Madison Avenue style propaganda blitzes that assume the Arab Street is as clueless and manipuable as the average American consumer.

Me, I'm not buying a new and better Bush and I have to believe that neither will the 70% of Americans that are tired of the one we have. And those are just his ideological problems. It doesn't take much digging to discover the flaws in his record. Eli at FDL just scratches the surface and reveals Fred's aw-gosh pretensions are merely a cover for a political career spent firmly lodged in the pocket of big business interests. He pushed through the revolving door from the Senate into lobbyist row so fast, heads are still spinning on K Street.

But as I said, I think he might just win the nomination, especially since he's wooing Rove's star pupil in vote stealing, Tim Griffin, as his campaign guru. I kind hope he does. I think he'll be easier to beat in the general than Rudy would be, especially if Griffin is indicted by the time the election rolls around.

[For an opposing view, see Michael van der Galien. He liked the column.]

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

[thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link]

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous Anonymous said...

like most republicans, fred drinks from the neo con conspiracy well. the foreign policy that has given bush his 30% approval rating. why are republicans so lost on foreign policy?

1:24:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

They're not lost Lester. They're just professional politicians pandering to the base that picks the nominee.

2:13:00 PM  
Blogger Michael van der GaliĆ«n said...

Pondering to the base? Like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voting against the funding bill?

Like that you mean?

3:01:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Yes Michael. That's exactly what I mean. I don't deny both sides do it. That's why I can't support anybody in the field on either side. I'm working on a post about just that in fact.

3:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is Obama's vote against the funding bill pandering to the base? He opposed the war from the beginning and he dislikes the fact that the funding bill gives Bush a blank check to continue as before. Hillary was pandering because she doesn't actually oppose the war; or at least she didn't when it mattered.

8:38:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Elrod, I'll grant Obama is in a grey area in the pandering on the war department but he wasn't there for the AUMF vote so he doesn't have that baggage to overcome and I think his position has been far from strong or even consistent on the occupation.

9:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home